Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 459 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. B. M. RAO

2005-07-06

R.S.GARG, RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2005
R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) RULE. MR. G. M. JOSHI, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the opponent. ( 2 ) ON 23rd February, 2005, a Division Bench of this Court, while considering civil Application No. 788 of 2005, ordered that pending the appeal, there shall be interim stay in terms of paragraph-3 (A) on condition that the applicant, state Government, shall complete the disciplinary proceedings pending against the opponent (respondent) on or before 30th April, 2005. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the inquiry could not be completed on or before 30th April, 2005. The State Government made an application on 2nd May, 2005 seeking two months extension on the grounds mentioned in the application. It was submitted in the application that the Inquiry Report in relation to the first inquiry was received and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the opponent (respondent) on 21st March, 2005 and even upto the date of the application, the respondent had not submitted his reply. For the second inquiry, it was submitted that the Inquiry Report was received on 12th April, 2005; the report was accepted on 15th April, 2005, a notice was issued to the respondent, but, upto the date of the application, he did not submit his reply. On this ground, extension was sought. ( 4 ) THE respondent submitted that after receiving the first Inquiry Report, finding that he was not supplied with certain documents, he made an application to the Department for supply of the documents, but, as the same were not supplied to him, in true earnest, he could not file reply. ( 5 ) OPPOSING the application for extension, Mr. Oza vehemently contended that the extension could not be presumed or an order in favour of the Department should not be taken for granted. Referring to the merits of the matter, he submitted that injustice has been occasioned to the respondent right from the date of his promotion and he is fighting against the mighty State and its Officers. It was submitted that whenever promotions were due, or the Departmental Promotion committee ("dpc") was to be held, a chargesheet on bogus grounds, etc. was issued to him. It was submitted that whenever promotions were due, or the Departmental Promotion committee ("dpc") was to be held, a chargesheet on bogus grounds, etc. was issued to him. He submits that if the application was made on 2nd May, 2005, then, immediately thereafter or immediately after reopening of the Court, the application should have been brought to the notice of the Court. His submission is that if after filing the application, the appellants did not take any positive steps in the matter, then, it must be presumed that despite latches and lapses on their part, they are trying to put a premium on the same. He also submitted that if extension was to be obtained, then, the application should have been made on or before the expiry of the term. ( 6 ) IT is to be seen that the inquiry was to be concluded on or before 30th april, 2000. 30th April was a non-working Saturday for the High Court. 1st May was the Sunday and therefore, the application for extension could be made on reopening of the Court i. e. on 2nd May, 2005. Though the proposition is vehemently opposed by Mr. Oza, but, we are of the considered opinion that every court even otherwise has inherent powers and every Civil Court has powers under section-148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to extend the time even after the expiry of the period fixed earlier. In the present matter, in our considered opinion, after filing the application seeking extension of time, the appellants could certainly and justifiably presume that the application would see the light of the day at its earliest in accordance with the procedure adopted by this court. Filing of the application on 2nd May itself would not leave any room to raise any doubt against the bona fides of the appellants; in fact, rather that would show that alive to the situation and realising that the period was to expire, they made an application for extension. ( 7 ) SO far as the merits of the matter are concerned, at this stage, we are not required to look into that. The basic question before us is that whether time should be extended or not. ( 7 ) SO far as the merits of the matter are concerned, at this stage, we are not required to look into that. The basic question before us is that whether time should be extended or not. ( 8 ) IT is undisputed before us that the inquiry stands concluded, notices have already been issued and an order of punishment has already been made against the interest of the respondent by 2nd June, 2005. It is to be noted that the High court was closed from 14th May to 12th June, 2005. If during the vacation and even before extension of time, steps were taken to take the proceedings to their logical end, then, it cannot be presumed that the appellants are adding premium to the lapses committed by them. ( 9 ) IT is to be noted that the plea of non-supply of documents raised by the respondent is not to find a place in the counter affidavit. When the fact was pointed to Mr. Oza, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, he submitted that this fact has been mentioned in the reply to the application seeking condonation of delay. We must record that for this application, this allegation remains uncontroverted. ( 10 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the application deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The period already fixed by the Order dated 23rd February, 2005 is extended upto 2nd June, 2005. Rule is made absolute. ( 11 ) AT the request of Mr. Oza, it is made clear that any observations made by us in this proceedings are for disposal of the Civil Application only. .