Point of Law:
The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the dismissal order dated 30.09.2005 as well as the appellate order dated 17.03.2006 confirming the dismissal of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 07.08.1999 for certain charges relating to the period when he was serving at Sarsa Health Center, Dist.Kheda. Upon service of the chargesheet, the petitioner tendered his explanation on 01.09.1999. After taking into consideration the explanation, the respondent No.2 initiated the disciplinary inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer, who held the inquiry and gave his report on 14.05.2001, wherein out of six (6) charges leveled against him, Charge Nos.3 and 6 came to be proved against the petitioner. The said report was served upon the petitioner in the year 2003, upon which the petitioner made a representation on 07.06.2003. By the order dated 30.09.2005, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on the basis of the alleged charges leveled against him, more particularly Charge Nos.3 and 6.

2.2 An appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (GCS Rules, 1971) on 08.11.2005, which came to be dismissed and the said order came to be confirmed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 17.03.2006.

2.3 Charge Nos.3 and 6 are the main charges based upon which the order of dismissal came to be passed against the petitioner, as confirmed in appeal by the respondent No.1. Charge No.3, as is alleged to have been proved, is administrative in nature as it refers to certain procedures to be followed before proceeding with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and Charge No.6 relates to patient, namely Dhulabhai, who was examined by the petitioner as an Outdoor Patients (OPD), when the petitioner was looking after the OPD patient on 12.08.1994. Dhulabhai was examined for diarrhoea, vomiting and dehydration complaints and was advised immediate hospitalization and accordingly, medicines were also prescribed. It is alleged that since the said patient was not properly attended to by the petitioner and the inhouse medico as well as paramedico staff of the Health Center, he died at around 1:10 p.m.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.M.Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Digant Popat with learned advocate Mr.Jaimin Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is neither any negligence on the part of the petitioner nor has the petitioner committed any error in diagnosing the said patient and in that view of the matter, the charge, as is leveled against the petitioner, that he has shown negligence or has not acted sincerely is totally false. It was submitted that on the day the patient died there was heavy rush in the hospital, and the petitioner had to treat more than 150 patients. It was submitted that thus, looking to the heavy burden of the work, the impugned order may be set aside. He submitted that the respondents have not taken any action whatsoever against the inhouse staff, medico or paramedico for the negligence or lack of sincerity in treating the said indoor patient, but instead, has dismissed the petitioner blaming him to be negligent.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Joshi submitted that the disciplinary inquiry came to be initiated by chargesheet dated 07.08.1999 for the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in a period from 1990 to 1994. Thus, he has submitted that the disciplinary inquiry is delayed in nature, which precludes the petitioner from remembering and explaining each and every minute details regarding the alleged charges and, therefore, the said disciplinary proceedings being delayed in nature deserve to be quashed and set aside.

3.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Joshi contended that there were various documents which were considered by the inquiry officer while arriving at the guilt of the petition