IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No 974 of 2003
in
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATIONNo 8482 of 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION
Versus
ISHWARBHAI HARGOVINDBHAI PRAJAPATI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Misc.Civil Application No. 974 of 2003
MR HS MUNSHAW for Petitioner No. 1-2
MR AK CLERK for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of Order: 02/05/2003
ORAL ORDER
An advance copy of this application was served
upon Mr AK Clerk, learned counsel who had appeared for
the opponent herein (original petitioner) at the hearing
of the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application
No.8482 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dated
14.10.2002. The main petition was filed for challenging
the suspension order dated 17.8.2002. While disposing of
the main petition, this Court did not interfere with the
order of suspension but directed that if at all the
Corporation is to institute a departmental inquiry
against the original petitioner, the Corporation shall
commence the departmental inquiry by issuing a
charge-sheet by 30.11.2002 and shall complete the
departmental inquiry by 10.4.2003.
2.The present application came to be filed on
8.4.2003 stating that the charge-sheet has been issued to
the original petitioner on 30.11.2002 and that some more
time will be required for completion of the departmental
inquiry.
3.Mr Clerk states that the opponent herein,
original petitioner, has taken away the papers from him
and, therefore, he is not in a position to appear in the
matter. He further states that the opponent is
personally present before the Court. Accordingly, the
Court has heard the opponent as the party in person.
4.Rule. The opponent party-in-person waives
service of Rule.
5.According to the opponent-original petitioner,
since the charge-sheet was issued on 30.11.2002 and he
has already filed reply to the same in December, 2002,
the Corporation had sufficient time to complete the
departmental inquiry. He further submits that 8 months
have already passed since the order of suspension was
implemented on 20.8.2002 but still the opponent-original
petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance at the
rate of 50% only, though the Corporation is required to
pay him subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% upon
completion of six months from the date of suspension as
the delay is not attributable to the opponent-original
petitioner. The opponent further states that no action
has been taken against the other erring Officers.
6.Mr Munshaw for the Corporation states that since
the Inquiry Officer has been appointed in March, 2003,
extension may be granted till 30.9.2003 for completion of
the departmental inquiry.
7.Having heard the learned counsel for the
Corporation and opponent as party-in-person, it appears
to the Court that since there is no allegation that the
opponent-original petitioner has not cooperated, the
Corporation is required to examine his case for payment
of subsistence allowance at the higher rate upon
completion of six months from the date of suspension.
8.Subject to the aforesaid observation, the time
limit for completion of the departmental inquiry against
opponent Ishwarbhai Hargovindbhai Prajapati pursuant to
the chargesheet dated 30.11.2002 is extended till 30th
September, 2003.
It is clarified that if opponent-original
petitioner extends cooperation for expeditious disposal
of the inquiry, any application in future for extension
of time will not be viewed leniently.
9.The application is accordingly disposed of.
Subject of the aforesaid observations, rule is made
absolute with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Shah, J)
zgs/-