Significant delays in disciplinary proceedings can violate principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of penalties and entitlement to benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State.

2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Quashing and setting aside letters dated 07.8.2014, 15.07.2015, and further directing the respondent to grant the second higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.2005 with consequential benefits and revise his retirement benefits.

(AA) Quashing and setting aside the punishment order dated 15.05.2013 attached at Annexure-K to this petition declaring it to be arbitrary, unjust and illegal.

(b) During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, the respondent may be directed to sanction second higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.2005.

(c) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed and proper in the interest of justice.”

3.1. Briefly stated that, the petitioner was serving as Additional Assistant Engineer with the respondent and superannuated on 29.02.2012. The petitioner was granted first higher pay scale from 01.10.1990, vide order dated 16.10.1993. The petitioner became eligible for second higher pay scale from 01.10.2005. On 30.05.2014, the Superintending Engineer, recommended the case of the petitioner for second higher pay scale, w.e.f. 01.10.2005.

3.2. On 07.08.2014, the respondent informed the Superintending Engineer, Surat that the petitioner is not entitled to second higher pay scale, in view of the resolution dated 31.03.2005 issued by the Finance Department, wherein, it is stated that if an employee is imposed with a major penalty, in that case, no higher pay scale is to be granted. The petitioner by letter dated 25.02.2015, requested the respondent to re-consider his penalty and grant him second higher pay scale, which came to be rejected by letter dated 15.07.2015.

3.3. In view of the aforesaid facts, petitioner herein has challenged the impugned orders dated 07.08.2014, 15.07.2015, and punishment order dated 15.05.2013 (which is duly produced at Annexure-K) and further prayed for directing the respondent to grant the second higher pay scale to the petitioner, w.e.f. 01.10.2005 with consequential benefits and revise his retirement benefits.

4.1. Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that, for the alleged misconduct of the year 1991, an inquiry came to be initiated in the year 2001. The inquiry report came to be submitted by the inquiry officer, exonerating the petitioner herein from all the charges, in the year 2003. The said inquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner herein and the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent – State, disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and straightaway, recording the guilt, as such reproducing the charges, the same being violative of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yoginath Bagade reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739. The show cause notice issued on 16.01.2010, is duly produced at Annexure-D/1.

4.2. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel further submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that Gujarat Public Service Commission was also consulted before passing an order of punishment, in view of the fact that, it was a common inquiry, under Rule-13 of the Gujarat Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1971. However, the opinion was never supplied to the petitioner, which is also in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 and S.N. Narula v/s. Union of India reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591.

5. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent – S