Point of Law:
The irregularities which were subject matter of enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1957-77. It is not case of department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogesh Ravani for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah for the respondent State, at length.

2. By presenting this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the two petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent to drop the departmental inquiry initiated against them pursuant to chargesheets dated 18th January, 2010 which was followed by preliminary inquiry dated 19th October, 2004.

3. The relevant facts in the background are that the two petitioners were posted as Deputy Executive Engineers in the Road & Building Department and had with them the charge of Panchayat Sub Division, Ahmedabad. At that time, which was the period between 1997 and 2000, certain construction works of road etc. were undertaken by the Panchayat Sub Division. The petitioners were served with the chargesheet in relation to the alleged irregularities in respect of the construction work supervised by them.

3.1 Petitioner No.1 was served with chargesheet dated 18th January, 2010 in which it was stated that when the petitioner was posted between 01st April, 1997 to 15th July, 2000 at District Panchayat, Ahmedabad in capacity of Deputy Executive Engineer, the irregularities were noticed in the development works of Naroda Gram Panchayat. Five charges were levelled which were with regard to expending more amount, accounting for double expenses, allegedly creating false records and so as to show the wrong measurement to claim further amount etc.

3.2 In the same way, petitioner No.2 was given the chargesheet of even date. The developmental work was supervised by him as Deputy Executive Engineer during the period from 15th July, 2000 to 14th March, 2006. The charges against this petitioner were of similar nature of incurring avoidable or double expenses and creating false record and measurement to inflate the amount to be recovered.

3.3 Both the petitioners were alleged the breach of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and sought to be proceeded with departmentally. They were called upon to submit their explanation. Both the petitioners, after service of chargesheets, made repeated request between 01st February, 2010 to 08th September, 2010 to the department to provide Rojkam and Panchnama. According to the petitioners, such relevant documents were not provided to them.

3.4 Petitioner No.1 retired from service on 31st March, 2011. Petitioner No.2 stood superannuated with effect from 31st October, 2012. It is the case that the petitioners requested that after their retirement, the departmental inquiry was not liable to be continued. It is stated that on 23rd June, 2014, they addressed letters asking to furnish the material which the respondents had been relying on, but nothing was provided, it was stated. It is stated by them that due to their insistence to provide documents, the respondents expressed to drop the inquiry in October, 2016, however it did not happen. Petitioner No.1 filed his defence statement on 02nd January, 2017.

4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent authority had proceeded to conduct the inquiries though there was total lack of evidence and that the inquiries against the petitioners were to be characterised with “no evidence”. In this regard it was submitted that when there was no Panchnama available, the whole charges about the irregularities in the construction work stood rendered factually foundationless. It was further submitted that in absence of any supportive material, charges could not have been levelled. The next was the submission about the inordinate delay of 13 years in holding the inquiries to submit that on this ground alone, the inquiries deserve to be quashed.

4.1 Detailed affidavit-in-reply came to be filed by the respondent, in which the charges against the petitioners were sought to be justified and it was stated that communication was received from Vigilance Commissioner in the year 2004 and the report of the Developmen