Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1644 (GUJ)

Manubhai Becharbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2024-07-31

PRANAV TRIVEDI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. The present petition has been filed in the month of August, 2008 with the reliefs as follows:- “(b) this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to inquire into the gross negligence of Office of Respondent No.3 in not investing huge amounts of Rs.8,38,982/- as per Orders dated 09-12-2003 and 14-12-2005 which are at Annexure A and B respectively to this Petition; (c) this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to recover an amounts of interest on Rs.8,38,982/- from the employee of Office of Respondent No.3 by further directing to pay the said interest amounts to the Petitioners; (d) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to inquire into the allegations made in the Petition and submit the report of the same before the Honourable Court; (e) Such other and further relief/s as the Honourable Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted to the Petitioners;” 2. The relevant facts to be noted herein are that the awards dated 29.03.1993 were published for the acquired agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners of the Village: Ambaliyara, for the purposes of Narmada Project. The petitioners filed References before the Collector, which were referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad. By judgement and order dated 06.03.1998, the References were allowed awarding additional amount of compensation to the petitioners herein. The enhanced amount of compensation was deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Reference Court, Kheda at Nadiad on 23.08.2001. 3. It seems that some dispute had arisen with regard to disbursement of compensation on an application filed by the petitioners on 24.10.2001. There were two other claimants, namely Punambhai Khodabhai Rawal and Kantibhai Khodabhai Rawal, who filed separate application dated 25.10.2001 for disbursement. The concerned Court, vide order dated 27.06.2003, rejected the applications of both the petitioners as also the aforesaid claimants. The said claimants filed the First Appeal No.1994 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of rejection of their application dated 25.10.2001. 4. The concerned Court, vide order dated 27.06.2003, rejected the applications of both the petitioners as also the aforesaid claimants. The said claimants filed the First Appeal No.1994 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of rejection of their application dated 25.10.2001. 4. While admitting the appeal, this Court vide order dated 09.12.2003 had directed the reference Court to invest the compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body with a Nationalized Bank initially for the period of three months. 5. The petitioners had also filed an application before the first appellate Court praying for investing the compensation amount as deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and by order dated 14.12.2005, the first appellate Court had directed the trial Court to invest the amount in a fixed deposit account with any Nationalized Bank for the period of three years and after three years along with the interest, it was ordered to be re-invested for a further period of three years, if the appeal was not decided by that time. 6. It is further stated that an amicable settlement had been arrived at between the two sets of claimants, as aforesaid, and on an application filed by the other set of claimants, who were appellants, the First Appeal No.1994 of 2003 had been permitted to be withdrawn by the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by this Court. Consequently, the First Appeal had been disposed of as withdrawn. 7. After the withdrawal of the appeal, an application dated 06.07.2007 had been filed by the petitioners in LAR Case No.2407/1994 in the concerned Court at Nadiad praying for the release of the deposited amount of compensation along with the accrued interest. The principal amount deposited by the acquiring body/ Special Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court was Rs.8,38,982/-, which though had been paid to the petitioners vide Cheque No.1928041 dated 19.03.2008 drawn on the State Bank of India, but accrued interest had not been paid on the premise that the deposited amount of compensation was lying with the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad and was not invested in an interest fetching account of a Nationalized Bank inspite of two orders passed by this Court in the First Appeal, as noted hereinbefore. 8. 8. The result is that the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat to inquire into the gross negligence of the office of the respondent No.3, namely the Registrar of the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad and even recover the amount of interest on the principal amount of Rs.8,38,982/- from the employees of the District Court and pay the said amount to the petitioners. The request was made to initiate an inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. 9. We may note that after presentation of the writ petition, an order has been passed on 21.09.2010 by the Court keeping it open for the High Court to take appropriate and necessary decision on the administrative side in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition. 10. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary inquiry was conducted for the alleged lapse on the part of the concerned officers and on the information passed on to this Court, by order dated 18.11.2010, this Court, while granting time to conclude the inquiry, had directed to submit the report before the Court. 11. For the period of three years from 18.11.2010 till 09.10.2013 it seems that nothing had been moved and the then learned advocate appearing for the petitioner stopped coming to the Court as he was not well. This fact is recorded in the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by this Court. The inquiry report in the closed envelope was produced before the Court on 25.07.2014 and was opened and perused, whereafter it was found that three employees namely, (i) Smt. H.G.Bhatt, (ii) Smt. B.R. Patel and (iii) Mr. T.P. Rana were responsible officers for not complying with the directions of the High Court in the First Appeal for investment of the amount of Rs.8,38,982/- in the fixed deposit. From the order dated 25.07.2014, we may note that the then learned counsel for the petitioners had filed a leave note on the said date. 12. By order dated 12.12.2014, taking note of the previous order dated 25.07.2014, this Court had ordered to implead the three erring officials found in the inquiry report to be joined as party respondents. 13. It was then reported and noted in the order dated 16.01.2015 that the newly impleaded respondent No.4, namely Smt. H.G. Bhatt, had left the country and was staying abroad. 13. It was then reported and noted in the order dated 16.01.2015 that the newly impleaded respondent No.4, namely Smt. H.G. Bhatt, had left the country and was staying abroad. The other two respondents No.5 and 6, namely Smt.B.R. Patel and Mr. T.P. Rana were present in the Court. Affidavits-in-reply had been tendered by the said respondents on the said fact brought before the Court, the Court had sought details of the bank account of respondent No.4 where the pension was being credited. 14. On the next date i.e. 24.02.2015, this Court has noted that the calculation towards loss of interest at the rate of 8% per annum amounted to Rs.2,46,077/- and required the State as well as the administration of the High Court to show cause as to why the said amount should not be directed to be recovered from the State with the liberty to the State to recover the said amount from the concerned erring officers after holding the inquiry in accordance with law. 15. The original record perused by the District Judge on the basis of which the report had been submitted was called for by order dated 22.07.2015. The matter was adjourned on the request made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 to file affidavit-in-reply on the dates fixed, i.e. 06.11.2015. It has not been proceeded, thereafter, on account of the sad demise of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.09.2021. Repeated adjournments were sought by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, thereafter. 16. Taking note of the repeated sick notes and leave notes of the learned advocate for the petitioners and the respondent as was evident from the order-sheet, this Court vide order dated 30.01.2024 posted the matter on 08.02.2024 noticing that no further indulgence would be granted. 17. In spite of the said order, on 18.07.2024, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners had filed a sick note. The matter was adjourned to 25.07.2024 when it was heard and kept for orders/delivery of judgements. 18. 17. In spite of the said order, on 18.07.2024, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners had filed a sick note. The matter was adjourned to 25.07.2024 when it was heard and kept for orders/delivery of judgements. 18. Taking note of the above chronology of events, this Court finds that the only dispute raised in the writ petition is to make an inquiry into the allegations of non-compliance of the orders passed by the first appellate Court dated 14.12.2005, wherein the direction was given to invest the deposited amount in a fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years, if the appeal was not decided by that time. 19. Admittedly, the amount of compensation before the District Court had not been invested in a fixed deposit account in spite of the directions issued by the first appellate Court (the High Court) in the order dated 14.12.2005. After dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn by order dated 30.04.2007, the petitioners had filed application for withdrawal of the deposits, whereafter the principal amount to the tune of Rs.8,32,982/- was paid on 19.03.2008. As is evident from the record the interest accrued on the principal amount of Rs.8,32,982/- had not been paid to the petitioners for non- compliance of the directions of this Court dated 14.12.2005, and the present writ petition has been filed in the month of August, 2008. 20. Under the orders passed by this Court, in the instant petition, preliminary inquiry was conducted and three persons noted hereinbefore have been found to be prima facie guilty of non- compliance of the order of this Court, resulting in loss caused to the petitioners for non-investment of the deposited amount of compensation with a Nationalized Bank. By order dated 12.12.2014, this Court had directed for impleadment of the three erring officials noticing that before any order of recovery of the amount of loss of interest is passed, they are required to be heard. By order dated 24.02.2015 this Court has further directed to show cause as to why the calculated loss of interest to the tune of Rs.2,46,077/- be not paid to the petitioners with a liberty to the State to recover the said amount from the concerned erring officers after holding the inquiry in accordance with law. 21. By order dated 24.02.2015 this Court has further directed to show cause as to why the calculated loss of interest to the tune of Rs.2,46,077/- be not paid to the petitioners with a liberty to the State to recover the said amount from the concerned erring officers after holding the inquiry in accordance with law. 21. The fact remains that after receipt of the preliminary inquiry report, no departmental inquiry had been conducted against any of the three erring officials so as to fix their responsibilities to compensate for the loss suffered by the petitioners towards interest for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 14.12.2005. 22. As has been brought before us by Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the High Court in view of Rules 23 and 24 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, (in short as “the Pension Rules’ 2002), no departmental inquiry can be conducted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, after the final retirement of the Government employee. Rule 24(2) relevant for our purposes is to be noted hereinunder:- “24(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub- rule(1), if instituted while the Government employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government employee, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government employee had continued in service. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governer, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government employee during his service.” 23. A perusal of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 24 indicates that it is well within the jurisdiction of the State Government to pass an order in writing to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it whether permanent or for specified period, and also order recovery from such pensioner, whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. 24. Sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 24 provides that the departmental inquiry referred to in sub-rule(1), if instituted, while the Government employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be deemed to be the proceedings under the Rule and shall be continued and concluded by the disciplinary authority in the manner as if the Government employee had continued in service. 25. However, if a situation where the departmental proceedings had not been instituted while the Government employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, relevant clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 24, noted hereinabove, are to be looked into. 26. A reading of sub-rule(2)(b)(ii) of Rule 24 indicates that no departmental inquiry shall be instituted in respect of any event, which took place more than four years before such institution, if not instituted while the Government employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. 27. In the instant case, the allegations of misconduct or negligence on the part of the three officers, impleaded as respondents No.4,5 and 6 under the order passed by this Court, are of non-compliance by not investing the compensation amount in a Nationalized Bank in defiance of the order dated 14.12.2005 passed by the first appellate Court, are of the year 2005. It is an admitted fact of the matter that no inquiry or departmental proceedings had been initiated against the three officers on the allegations prior to their superannuation. It is an admitted fact of the matter that no inquiry or departmental proceedings had been initiated against the three officers on the allegations prior to their superannuation. Even after the submission of the preliminary inquiry report under the order passed by this Court, though three officers against whom allegations were found to be prima facie proved, have been impleaded in the writ petition as respondents no.4,5 and 6, but no departmental inquiry has been initiated or conducted to hold them guilty of gross misconduct or negligence during the period of their service. In any case, for holding these officers as guilty against whom allegations are found prima facie true, there was a requirement of initiation of departmental proceedings, by complying with the provisions of Rule 24, sub-rule(2)(b) of the Pension Rules’ 2002, which has not been done in this case. 28. We may hold that no recovery can be made from the respondents No.4,5 and 6 on the mere allegations of misconduct or gross-negligence, found prima facie proved in the preliminary inquiry, inasmuch as, for holding them guilty, it was necessary that the allegations of gross misconduct or negligence were proved by conducting full-fledged departmental inquiry. 29. We, therefore, find it fit, in the interest of justice to hold that no recovery can be made from the respondents No.4,5 and 6, as it is not permissible under the rules to initiate the departmental proceedings against them in view of the prohibition contained in Rule 24(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules’ 2002. No recovery can be made from their pensionary benefits or the pension or part of the pension cannot be withheld or withdrawn, else any such direction would be contrary to the Pension Rules’ 2002. The relief as prayed in the writ petition for completion of inquiry against the erring officials, recover the loss of interest caused to the petitioners from the erring officers to pay to the petitioners cannot be granted after a gap of 17 years. 30. However, the only question remains is as to whether the petitioners can be compensated for the loss caused to them for inaction on the part of the officials of the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad. 31. 30. However, the only question remains is as to whether the petitioners can be compensated for the loss caused to them for inaction on the part of the officials of the District Court, Kheda at Nadiad. 31. On a query of the Court, Mr.Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-High Court would submit that there is no budgetary head or funds with the High Court to pay the loss of interest caused to the petitioners as calculated at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to Rs.2,46,077/-, noted in the order dated 24.02.2015. It is thus, not possible for the High Court or the District Court to pay the said amount from any budget allocated to it by the State Government. 32. Taking note of the above, we may further record that this Court vide order dated 24.02.2015 asked the State Government to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.2,46,077/- should not be directed to be recovered from the State with the liberty to the State to recover the said amount from the concerned erring officials after holding inquiry in accordance with law. 33. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 24.02.2015, no response has been filed on behalf of the State, namely the respondent No.1 to show cause. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents could not bring any response of the State before us. It is, thus, evident that the State has acquiesced to pay the amount of loss of interest at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to Rs.2,46,077/-. 34. Considering the above, we may further note that the petitioners have approached this Court well in time, within the period of five months from the date of disbursement of the principal amount of compensation vide cheque dated 19.03.2008. They, therefore, cannot be deprived of the final relief, which is to grant interest as computed by this Court to the tune of Rs.2,46,077/- towards loss of interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 35. In view of the above, in order to meet the ends of justice, we provide that the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority shall bear the payment, which was otherwise payable by the State Government in view of the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by this Court. 35. In view of the above, in order to meet the ends of justice, we provide that the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority shall bear the payment, which was otherwise payable by the State Government in view of the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by this Court. We, therefore, direct the Member Secretary, Gujarat State Legal Services Authority to issue necessary directions to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kheda at Nadiad to pay the amount of Rs.2,46,077/- to the petitioners as computed under the order dated 24.02.2015 within the period of two weeks from today on an application moved by the petitioners along with the copy of this order. 36. We may further clarify that the petitioners would not be entitled for any amount as interest over and above the amount of Rs.2,46,077/- as computed by the petitioners and noted by this Court under the order dated 24.02.2015, inasmuch as, there has been consistent delay on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the instant writ petition for a long time. 37. With this we hope and trust that the issue raised in the instant petition shall be given a decent burial by the petitioners. 38. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.