Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 231 (GUJ)

B. H. CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-02-12

C.L.SONI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. In the facts of the case, instead of deciding the Civil Application for interim direction, the Court has taken up the main matter for final disposal. 2. The petitioner who retired as Senior Clerk, was served with a chargesheet three days before his retirement in respect of alleged incident/irregularities took place about 14 years before. 3. As stated in the chargesheet at page No.15, the Government through its Social Welfare Department had decided to give medical help to the people belonging to the Schedule Tribes whose income was below Rs.12000/- per year. 4. The four charges leveled against the petitioner are as under: I. In 22 cases for medical relief for T.B. Disease, signature of coprofessor of B.J. Medical College was not found genuine and for such cases, payment of Rs.24,600/- appeared to be suspicious. II. In 18 cases, similar such signatures of the coprofessors of B.J. Medical College was not genuine and appeared to be bogus. In such cases, payment of Rs.2,16,000/- appeared to be suspicious. III. There appeared to be frequent change in the signature of the Doctor of District Tuberculosis Redressal Forum. In every case, signature was found not matching. In those cases payment of Rs.2,16,000/- was involved. IV. As per order dated 31.03.1989 of Social Welfare Officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad Rs.22,575/- was paid for T.B. Medical help, out of which, receipts of 38 persons were available, whereas receipt for 2 persons are to be verified. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that though he demanded certain documents for the purpose of submitting his reply, however, he was not provided with such documents. Without supplying any documents to the petitioner, the petitioner was pronounced guilty and the petitioner was asked to reply to the show cause notice after the inquiry officer submitted his report. The petitioner then replied to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority then decided to impose punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500/- per month for a period of 10 years. However, the Panchayat Service Selection Board recommended to impose total cut in the pension of the petitioner. On the basis of such recommendation, impugned order dated 28.03.2006 for taking away entire pension of the petitioner was passed against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 7. Learned advocate Mr. However, the Panchayat Service Selection Board recommended to impose total cut in the pension of the petitioner. On the basis of such recommendation, impugned order dated 28.03.2006 for taking away entire pension of the petitioner was passed against the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 7. Learned advocate Mr. G. Ramkrishnan for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with chargesheet for holding departmental inquiry in respect of the alleged incidents took place before about 14 days. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that only on the ground of such long delay on the part of the respondents in initiating the departmental inquiry, the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner were of criminal nature, for which no regular departmental inquiry was held. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that no finding is recorded by the inquiry officer as to whether the petitioner was responsible for alleged false signature of the coprofessor on the recommendations for release of the medical help. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that the inquiry was initiated just 3 days prior to the retirement of the petitioner just to see that the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate right to pension and other retirement benefits. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that in fact, disciplinary authority proposed punishment of cut of Rs.500/- per month from the pension of the petitioner. However, the Panchayat Service Selection Board recommended full cut in pension of the petitioner. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner for the charges leveled against the petitioner and therefore, even the proposed punishment of cut of Rs.500/per month from the pension of the petitioner was not permissible. Mr. G. Ramkrishnan therefore, urged to allow the petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 and direct the respondents to release full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Roma Fidelis appearing for respondents No.2 and 4 submitted that affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, wherein, it is clearly stated that the medical help could not reach to the persons for whom the Government came out with the scheme for such medical help. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Roma Fidelis appearing for respondents No.2 and 4 submitted that affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, wherein, it is clearly stated that the medical help could not reach to the persons for whom the Government came out with the scheme for such medical help. It is also stated in the affidavit that the signatures of the coprofessor made for recommendation for medical help were not found genuine. 9. Ms. Fidelis submitted that in view of such serious charges proved against the petitioner, the impugned order of total cut of pension was legal and this Court may not therefore interfere with such punishment. Ms. Fidelis submitted that it was after giving opportunity to the petitioner, the inquiry officer held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and therefore, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed punishment recommended by the Panchayat Service Selection Board. 10. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval adopted the submissions made by Ld. Advocate Ms. Fidelis and urged to dismiss the petition. 11. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused record of the case, it appears that for proving the charges leveled against the petitioner, no oral evidence was led by witness nor any document was proved against the petitioner. It appears that the inquiry officer just considered the reply of the petitioner submitted in his defense and then abruptly came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. It is required to be noted that the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner for proposed penalty under Rule 6 of Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 ('the Rules' for short). Rule 8 of the said Rules provides the procedure imposing major penalties. 12. Rule 6 amongst other penalties provides for major penalties, therefore, regular departmental inquiry was required to be held, however, without holding any departmental inquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner, inquiry officer just submitted his report, stating that the charges against the petitioner were proved. It is required to be noted that in the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the inquiry officer could not have just considered the reply of the petitioner to come to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. It is required to be noted that in the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the inquiry officer could not have just considered the reply of the petitioner to come to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Above such charges against the petitioner could have been proved only by examining witness and by proving the documents against the petitioner. 13. Even apart from above, on account of unreasonable long delay in initiation of inquiry against the petitioner, the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. There is no dispute about the fact that the charges leveled against the petitioner were in respect of release of medical help in the year 1989-90. After about more than 13 years, when the petitioner was about to retire, he was served with the chargesheet only before 3 days of his retirement. Considering the nature of the charges leveled against the petitioner, in fact, it could not have been possible for the petitioner to defend himself after such a long span of time. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner of cut in pension on such delayed inquiry cannot be sustained. 14. For the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny of law and is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to release pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2006 at Annexure-F and the intimation dated 13.04.2006 at Annexure-G are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule made absolute. ORAL ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION In view of final order passed in the main petition, no order is required to be passed in the Civil Application. Hence, the same is disposed of.