A charge-sheet issued after an excessive delay violates principles of timely justice, reaffirmed in case law.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

1. Heard Mr.Dhawan Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant – State.

2. In the facts of this case, there is delay of 24 days caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal No.475 of 2021 by the appellant herein (original respondent) and hence the Civil Application No.1002 of 2021 is preferred for condonation of the delay. Since the delay of 24 days caused in preferring the present Appeal is satisfactorily explained, the delay is condoned. Civil Application No.1002 of 2021 stands disposed of.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common oral order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4041 of 2011, the State has preferred this Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act .

4. The respondent herein (original petitioner) approached this Court by way of Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.4041 of 2021 and contended that the impugned chage-sheet dated 09.04.2010, issued to the respondent herein (original petitioner) for alleged misconduct for a period between the year 1998 and 1999, is issued after more than 10 years. It was further contended that the appellant – State should have been vigilant enough to solve their inter-se querries and should have issued charge-sheet immediately to the respondent herein (original petitioner). Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92 .

4.1 It may be noted that the said Writ Petition was heard along with Special Civil Application No.3321 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by common oral order dated 22.01.2020 was pleased to allow the petition and impugned charge-sheet dated 09.04.2010 came to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr.Dhavan Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the charge-sheet even though the same was given for alleged misconduct of the year 1998-99. It was contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that it came to notice of the department only in the year 2002 and immediately thereafter inquiry was handed over to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Vigilance, Surat. It was contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jaiswal that the charge-sheet has been issued due to negligence and irregularities caused in performance of duty prescribed under Article 6 (C) of Chapter II of the Gujarat Forest Manual. It was further contended by Mr.Jaiswal that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in quashing the impugned charge-sheet on the ground of delay.

According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra).

5.1 On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that the appeal deserves consideration and the same deserves to be allowed. No other submissions are made.

6. Mere perusal of the record clearly suggests that the impugned charge-sheet dated 09.04.2010 was issued to the respondent herein (original petitioner) after over a period of more than 12 years. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to quash and set aside the similar charge-sheet issued after delay of about seven years and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned bel