Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5168/2008 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5168 of 2008
=========================================================
USMANGANI
R. VORA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MM TIRMIZI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH
AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 24/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent ? authorities to
complete the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner at
the earliest point of time.
2.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk
in the Primary Health Centre at Anklav vide order dated 12.11.1968.
On 29.06.2005, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by
respondent no.2 herein under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat
Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1997 inter alia alleging that
he had misappropriate the funds of the Panchayat. On the next day,
i.e. on 30.06.2005, the petitioner retired from the service on
superannuation.
3. The
petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet vide reply
dated 27.09.2005. Thereafter, on 06.03.2006, respondent no.2 passed
an order appointing an Inquiry Officer with a direction to the
Inquiry Officer concerned to complete the inquiry within one month
from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and to submit the
report thereof in two sets.
4. Since
the inquiry was not completed within the period, as directed by
respondent no.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal praying to direct the respondents to
complete the inquiry and to release his retirement benefits.
5. During
the hearing of the said appeal, the respondent ? authority gave an
assurance before the Tribunal that the payment towards Gratuity would
be released and that the departmental inquiry will be completed at
the earliest point of time and the pension will also be fixed. On the
aforesaid assurances, the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to
be disposed of on 18.10.2007.
6. As
no immediate action was taken by the respondents, on 22.01.2008, the
petitioner made an application to the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal
stating that neither the departmental inquiry initiated against him
has been completed nor he has been given the revised pension as per
the assurance given by the respondents at the time of hearing of the
appeal. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents,
the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.
7. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that
though vide order dated 06.03.2006, the respondent no.2 had directed
the Inquiry Officer concerned to complete the departmental inquiry
initiated against the petitioner within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of the said order, the departmental inquiry has
not been completed so far. It is a matter of record that in spite of
the order dated 06.03.2006 passed by respondent no.2, the
departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner has not been
completed so far, i.e. even after a period of almost 2½ years.
However, since the Inquiry Officer concerned has not been joined as a
party ? respondent to the present proceedings, no directions could
be issued against the said person.
7. However,
looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that if an
application is made by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer
concerned to complete the departmental inquiry initiated against him
at the earliest, it is expected that the Inquiry Officer, by adhering
to the directions issued by the respondent no.2 vide its order dated
06.03.2006, will complete the departmental inquiry within the period
stipulated in the said order. With the above observations, the
petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Direct service
permitted.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top