SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Narendrakumar Dahyalal Jani – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 18527 of 2014
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Prachi Upadhyay, Vaibhav A. Vyas.
For the Respondents: Jay Trivedi, H.S. Munshaw.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the quashing of the charge-sheet and show-cause-notice due to gross delay in initiation of proceedings by the concerned respondents, which caused mental agony to the petitioner and deprived him of his legitimate dues and retiral benefits.

Headnote:

Delay in Initiation of Proceedings - Panchayat Civil Services Rules - Quashing of Charge-sheet - [DELAY IN INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS] - [PANCHAYAT CIVIL SERVICES RULES] - [Rule 6, Rule 8] - The court quashed the charge-sheet and show-cause-notice issued against the petitioner due to gross delay in initiation of proceedings by the concerned respondents. The court emphasized that the delay of almost 12 years in serving the show-cause-notice after the alleged incident in 2002 was arbitrary and caused mental agony to the petitioner, depriving him of his legitimate dues and retiral benefits. The court also referred to previous decisions where similar actions were quashed due to unreasonable long delay in initiating inquiries, and directed the concerned respondents to pay all retiral dues of the petitioner along with consequential benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Senior Clerk in a Panchayat, was alleged to have misappropriated government funds in 2002 by not paying financial assistance to pregnant ladies and forging their signatures. The concerned respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner in 2014, after a delay of 12 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was gross delay in initiating proceedings by the concerned respondents, causing mental agony to the petitioner and depriving him of his legitimate dues and retiral benefits. The court quashed the charge-sheet and show-cause-notice and directed the concerned respondents to pay all retiral dues of the petitioner along with consequential benefits.

Issues: The main issue was the delay in initiation of proceedings by the concerned respondents, which led to the quashing of the charge-sheet and show-cause-notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the gross delay of almost 12 years in serving the show-cause-notice after the alleged incident in 2002, which was deemed arbitrary and caused mental agony to the petitioner, depriving him of his legitimate dues and retiral benefits. The court also referred to previous decisions where similar actions were quashed due to unreasonable long delay in initiating inquiries.

Final Decision: The court quashed the charge-sheet and show-cause-notice issued against the petitioner and directed the concerned respondents to pay all retiral dues of the petitioner along with consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred present petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged show-cause-notice dated 25.11.2014 as well as charge-sheet with below mentioned prayers:

“3(A) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction and or to be pleased to quash, set aside the show cause notice dated 25/11/2014 issued by respondent no. 2 as well as the charge-sheet.

(C) That pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, stay the implementation and execution of the show cause notice dated 25/11/2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 and be further please to release the amount of gratuity and other pensionary benefits amounts lawfully due to the petitioner for his post retiremental survival.

(D) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to pass any other and further orders in the interest of justice.”

2. The short facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner joined services as a Junior Clerk in Ahmedabad District Panchayat on 3/8/1981. Thereafter, he was promoted on 20/9/2002 as Senior Clerk and was posted at Primary Health Centre, Trant, Taluka: Mandal. From 2005 to 2007 the petitioner was posted at Viramgam and thereafter, he was working in City Block from 2007 to 2008. From 2008 to 2014, the petitioner had discharged his services at Taluka Panchayat, Bavla. He was lastly serving as Senior Clerk in education department in District Panchayat at Ahmedabad. The petitioner thereafter, has retired on 29/11/2014.

2.1 The allegation against the petitioner is that when the petitioner was serving as Senior Clerk in the year 2002 at Trant Primary Health Centre, the petitioner had not paid the amount of Rs. 500/- provided as Financial Assistance by Government for the post delivery period i.e. nutrition allowance to the pregnant ladies. It is the allegation in the show-cause-notice that the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount by forging signatures of the pregnant ladies. For that the complaint came to be filed by one of the pregnant lady namely Alkaben Prahladbhai Darji after a period of 3 years to the President, Ahmedabad District Panchayat. Pursuant to the said complain an inquiry was initiated and a preliminary inquiry report was drawn by the Chief District Health Officer dated 14/3/2007. It was indicated in the said inquiry report that the petitioner as well as Dr. Mukesh Patel both were held responsible for the misappropriation of the amount.

2.2. The said preliminary inquiry report was drawn after a period of 5 years from the date of incident i.e. on 2002. Upon a preliminary inquiry report, a reference was made to the Directorate, Commissioner office for taking action against the said doctor Shri Mukesh Patel. Pursuant to the said report no action was taken against the said doctor by the Commissioner office.

2.3 After the preliminary report, the department had remained silent for 7 years. However, on the verge of the retirement, the petitioner was served with a show-causenotice on 25/11/2014 alleging him to be responsible for the act alleged to be committed by the petitioner way back in the year 2002. The petitioner had already informed the department that on the date on which the amount was disbursed, the petitioner had attended the workshop at Ahmedabad District Panchayat where his presence was also marked and further T.A./D.A. bill was also sanctioned to that effect.

2.4 The amount which has been disbursed on 24/10/2002 to the pregnant ladies, looking to the Disbursement Register it transpires that it is the medical officer who alone one has signed the said statement of disbursement. Further, there is not a single signature of the petitioner on the said register. The petitioner had joined his services on promotion at Trant Primary Health Centre and taken charge on 22/10/2002, only two days later of his joining, the alleged incident took place.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top