Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3125/2007 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3125 of 2007
=========================================================
BHAGWANBHAI
BHABHABHAI SMARAK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, AGP, for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED
for Respondent(s) : 2,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
Date
: 27/03/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the parties. It is ironical that the District
Education Officer has not applied his mind before deputing his own
man in the Inquiry Committee. He should have taken care that this
Inquiry Committee is being constituted in the background, where
earlier inquiry has been annulled by long litigious procedure. In
such circumstances, the District Education Officer should have been
wise enough to have appointed a suitable person. The person who is
appointed, himself shows inability on the ground that he does not
figure in the panel of those who could constitute Inquiry
Committee. Be that as it may, the District Education Officer should
be vigilant enough to see that such inquiries are not stalled for any
extraneous consideration. This Court is issuing direction to the
District Education Officer to see that the Inquiry Committee is
completed forthwith. His representative is appointed immediately and
all others are also made to join the Inquiry Committee and inquiry
proceeds in the manner in which it is required in law.
This
Court had earlier limited the scope of currency of inquiry for four
months and that was in June, 2007. This is in the circumstances
noticed above that this Court is constrained to observe that in not
having appointed a suitable person District Education Officer has
frustrated the time bound direction of this Court. The time frame
fixed by this Court has been flouted. It is obvious that it was
because of the negligence of the Government official. This speaks
about the functioning of the Government officers. An introspection at
the level of the Education Department of the State is required to be
made. Now the Government Official will see that the inquiry is
completed and concluded within four months henceforth.
What
is heartening is that the Government Officials on the one side do not
follow the orders of this Court and on the other hand, order stoppage
of maintenance grant. To that extent they have to judge their
action. If the inquiry would have been completed then there might
not have been any occasion for such order. They have to do some
introspection. Orders which show inefficiency of the Government
machinery should not have effect of jeopardizing the functioning of
the educational institution. With this observation, notice is issued
to the Government to show cause why for all the lapses which have
been noticed by the Court herein above suitable action be not
ordered against the concerned. Response of the Government be filed by
next date. Put up on 4.4.2008.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD, J)
(pkn)
Top