Gujarat High Court
Manishaben Savabhai Gohel W/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3323 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MANISHABEN SAVABHAI GOHEL W/O PRAVINBHAI HUMBA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UTKARSH J DAVE(10620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. KRINA CALLA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 13/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Krina Calla for the respondent - State.
2. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krina Calla waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
3. This is a case of Police Constable who has married to alleged land mafia and yet during the entire departmental proceedings, she has not disclosed the fact that she has married to him and though during the departmental proceedings, she has signed as if she is the wife of a land mafia. The above facts were not disclosed by the present petitioner and yet the petition is preferred challenging the action of the respondents of passing the order of penalty dated 05.02.2021 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner with deemed date of 24.10.2019.
4. In alternative the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion ignoring the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide order dated 04.04.2015 against the petitioner and to promote her to the rank of Police Inspector with effect from 24.10.2019. The petitioner has also prayed for providing her all service benefits which has been denied to her as consequences of her not being promoted on the due date.
Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
5. The facts of the case as stated by learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the petitioner are as under:-
5.1. The present petitioner joined the services of the Gujarat Police as Unarmed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with a fixed pay scale on 28.11.2010 and prior there to she was working as Post Graduate Teacher (Physical Education) in Delhi World Public School at Rajkot from 01.06.2007 to 25.10.2010. Upon completion of training, the was petitioner initially posted at Ahmedabad City Police as a probationary Unarmed Police Sub-
Inspector and later she was transferred to Rajkot (Rural) and posted as Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector.
5.2. On 04.04.2015, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet for misconduct stating that while serving with the Rajkot (Rural) Police Station, she had purchased the land worth Rs. 2.70 lakhs without taking any prior permission from the competent authority. In the sale deed executed, her photograph was in police uniform and the entire transaction was a cash transaction and even after purchasing the land also, she did not Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined disclose about the aforesaid facts.
5.3. Another charge in the charge-sheet indicates that the present petitioner was in touch with Pravin Humbal who happens to be a land mafia and has past antecedents and she has talked with him 6060 times between 01.01.2014 to 22.09.2014 and against the said Pravin Humbal on 21.10.2014 in Lodhika Police Station an FIR being C.R. No. I - 75 of 2014 was registered under sections 143, 144, 341, 384, 387, 389, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 (2), 120 (B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5.4. Though in the petition it is stated that the petitioner was planning to get marry to the above-named Pravin Humbal at the relevant point of time and subsequently, she has also married to him, no marriage certificate is annexed alongwith the petition to indicate that when the petitioner married to land mafia - Pravin Humbal.
5.5. The petitioner filed reply to the above charge-sheet on 06.05.2015 and stated that she was introduced to the said Pravin Humbal by her brother and in fact the land was purchased by Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined brother of the petitioner and out of love and affection for his sister i.e. present petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner also continues the status of agriculturist, out of the savings of her brother, sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid in cash to purchase the land in question. In the reply, she has stated that she came into contact with the said Pravin Humbal between 2006 to 2010 and as they both belonged to the same community, they became family friends and upon knowing on 22.09.2014 about the activities of said Pravin Humbal, she cut off the ties with the said Pravin Humbal which shows her sincerity, honesty, faithfulness towards police force.
5.6. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Vadodara City Police in the public interest vide order dated 08.05.2015 and on 30.04.2016, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, her services were confirmed as Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector (P.S.I.).
5.7. Again on 16.05.2018, the petitioner was transferred to the CID (IB), Regional Office, Rajkot in the rank of Intelligence Officer. Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 5.8. On 02.08.2019, Departmental Promotion Committee was scheduled to meet for the promotion of the batch of the petitioner to the rank of Police Inspector (PI) and even the Vigilance Clearance also was sought in respect of the petitioner for promotion. However, subsequently, it came to the notice of the respondent that a disciplinary proceedings were still pending against the present petitioner. However, the petitioner's name was amongst the names of candidates who were found eligible for promotion.
5.9. On 24.08.2019. the respondents served a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking reply as to why a major penalty of stoppage of one increment for one year with future effect should not be imposed upon the petitioner for the charges levelled against the petitioner.
5.10. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice by stating that the show cause notice is issued against the petitioner without conducting any disciplinary proceedings and ultimately, as the petitioner was working with CID (IB), the matter was Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined transferred to Additional Director General of Police, CID (IB) for final disposal of the disciplinary proceedings on the same day.
5.11. On 17.09.2019, the respondent decided to conduct a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner denovo and ultimately, the disciplinary proceedings against the present petitioner were conducted wherein three persons were examined. 1. Gitaben Khodidas Vasoya, 2. Khodidas Bhikhubhai Vasoya and 3. Piyushbhai Shivabhai Gohel (brother of the present petitioner). The said Gitaben Khodidas Vasoya - complainant and Khodidas also was examined but what is important is the examination of Piyushbhai Shivabhai Gohel who happens to be the brother of the present petitioner. 5.12. In the departmental proceedings, the brother of the petitioner admitted the fact that the land was purchased in the name of Manishaben and the amount was paid by him. He also referred to said Pravin Humbal as "Jijaji" and the said charge about executing the sale deed of land for cash consideration of Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Rs. 2,70,000/- for which the petitioner posed in the police uniform in the photograph and did not take prior permission about the purchase of land or intimated the authority about the purchase of land afterwards was held to be proved. 5.13. Second charge about the petitioner being in constant touch with the said Pravin Humbal between 01.01.2014 to 22.09.2014 was not proved.
5.14. On 30.06.2020, the Deputy Commissioner (S), CID (IB) partially agreed to the findings of the inquiry officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on her for the above misconduct of having purchased land without prior permission and not even intimated afterwards to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 13.07.2020. The aforesaid reply is not placed on record by the petitioner.
5.15. In the meantime, on 24.10.2019, the batch of the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Police Inspector from Police Sub- Inspector and thereafter as the reply to the show cause notice Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined given by the petitioner on 13.07.2020 was not accepted vide order dated 05.02.2021, the respondents imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner which the petitioner paid on 08.02.2021 and thereafter, made a representation to the respondent no. 2 requesting that she may be promoted to the post of Police Inspector alongwith batch-mates with deemed date. As the petitioner's representation was not decided, this petition is preferred with the prayers which are referred to hereinabove.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma appearing for the petitioner made following submissions:-
6.1. That there is inordinate delay in completing the inquiry which was initiated vide charge-sheet dated 04.04.2015 and ultimately, inquiry report was submitted only on 24.02.2022 which would indicate that the inquiry has proceeded for a period of four years and ten months. In fact there is no justification coming forward from the respondents for such long delay in completion of inquiry and therefore, according to Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined learned advocate Mr. Sharma, such delay would vitiate the inquiry.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A. P. V/s. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 and by relying upon paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment, submitted that the delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings.
6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma submitted that in the instant case, the departmental inquiry has unnecessarily being prolonged for a period of five years and in the meantime, DPC has met which prima facie found the petitioner to be eligible for the post of Police Inspector but the full fledged departmental inquiry which has continued even after when the petitioner's cadre was considered for promotion has resulted into adverse Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined consequences to the petitioner and therefore, the departmental inquiry is vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to get the promotion with deemed date as subsequently the petitioner is promoted.
6.4. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma mainly put forward the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay as on account of delay in inquiry which has resulted into a minor penalty, the petitioner though is promoted afterwards but has lost the deemed date and therefore, the same is being claimed by the present petitioner by way of the present petition.
6.5. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma also submitted that second charge was not proved, cannot be basis for imposing penalty upon the petitioner.
6.6. Except the above submissions, no other submissions were made by learned advocate Mr. Sharma.
7. Learned AGP Ms. Krina Calla appearing for the respondents -
State has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the present petitioner on one hand has stated that she has cut off all the ties with the alleged land mafia - Pravin Humbal from 22.09.2014, later on she has proceeded to marry him which is evident from two facts, first that the present petitioner when addressed a communication in the form of reply to the show cause notice dated 24.08.2019, the above communication was addressed by the petitioner in the name of Mrs. M. P. Kumbal (Manishaben Gohel) which would indicate that she has married to the said alleged land mafia - Pravin Humbal. However, at no point of time in reply to the charge-sheet on 06.05.2015 or in reply dated 25.08.2019 she has disclosed the fact that said Pravin Humbal happens to be her husband. Further, it was pointed out by learned AGP Ms. Calla that the last reply to the show cause notice dated 13.07.2020 is not placed on record by the present petitioner. However, the fact remains that on 06.05.2015, the petitioner in her reply submitted that upon knowing about the activities of the alleged land mafia - Pravin Humbal, she has cut off all the ties with him and later on, she got married with the said alleged land Mafia somewhere Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined between 2015 and 2019 and the said fact has not been disclosed by the present petitioner though there is a reference about Pravin Humbal as Jijaji by her brother - Piyushbhai but the petitioner never disclosed about the aforesaid facts during the course of inquiry.
7.1. Learned AGP Ms. Krina Calla in this background submitted that even as per the statement of Gitaben Khodidas Vasoya, she has stated that the land in question which was purchased in the name of present petitioner was purchased with Pravin Humbal as Mediator as Gitaben has stated in her statement that as per her knowledge, her three sister-in-laws have told her that the sale deed of the land would be executed in the name of person who is suggested by Pravin Humbal which would also indicate that in fact it was Pravin Humbal who was mediator in this land in question which has taken place by paying the consideration in cash as per the statement of brother of the present petitioner - Piyushbhai, the money belonged to Piyushbhai for which he purchased the land for the present petitioner and for this deal of land, the present petitioner has neither taken prior permission Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined from the higher authorities nor she has bothered to intimate after the execution of the sale deed to the respondent authorities and therefore, the said charge was held to be proved by the disciplinary officer for which a punishment of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner and therefore, when the departmental inquiry has resulted into holding the petitioner guilty, the petitioner is not entitled to deem date and by now the petitioner is already promoted but as far as the claim of the petitioner for deem date is concerned, that claim is absolutely baseless and requires to be dismissed.
7.2. Learned AGP Ms. Calla further submitted that there is no inordinate delay in the departmental inquiry. As according to learned AGP Ms. Calla, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 04.04.2015 for which the petitioner submitted her reply on 06.05.2015 and thereafter, she was transferred to Vadodara. However, till the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2019, the petitioner never made any application that the departmental proceedings are getting delayed and even thereafter, when vide order dated 17.09.2019, Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the departmental proceedings were directed to be initiated against the person denovo, the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order and in fact participated in the said departmental proceedings and now when the departmental proceedings have resulted into holding the petitioner guilty and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner which the petitioner has already paid without there being any protest on the part of the petitioner, the departmental proceedings can be said to have been concluded and when the petitioner has not challenged the departmental proceedings at any stage, it will not be open for the petitioner to challenge the order imposing penalty upon the petitioner which the petitioner has already paid.
7.3. Learned AGP Ms. Calla further submitted that the petitioner has not even preferred the appeal against the order of penalty and has accepted the said order by paying the amount of penalty and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the departmental proceedings on the ground of delay after having participated in the same.
Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
8. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the petitioner submitted that as the order of penalty was already reviewed by the competent authority under section 27 A of the Gujarat Police Act, no fruitful purpose would be served by preferring the departmental appeal and therefore, the appeal was not preferred by the petitioner and she has approached this Court straightway.
9. Learned AGP Ms. Calla lastly relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Raghavendra Narayan S/o. Ramdhar Prasad Narayan V/s. State of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 15661 of 2013 which was decided on 20.04.2015 and submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court after considering almost 18 judgments on the point of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the Court may not quash the charge-sheet or show- cause notice in the course of disciplinary proceedings, only on the ground of delay. It must examine the gravity or magnitude of the charges involved and the Court must weigh all the facts, Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined both for and against the delinquent officers so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion or not.
10. By making the above submissions, learned AGP Ms. Calla prayed for dismissal of this petition.
11. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I found that in the charge-sheet dated 04.04.2015, two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The second charge which was not proved was that the petitioner between 01.01.2014 to 22.09.2014 has talked with the said land mafia - Pravin Humbal for about 6060 times on his mobile number mentioned in the charge-sheet. However, this charge is not proved and even the order of punishment also, does not refer to the aforesaid charge and therefore, any discussion on the above charge is not required.
12. The first charge which was proved against the petitioner was Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined that the petitioner dressed in the police uniform executed a sale deed in respect of land by paying Rs. 2,70,000/- in cash and did not seek prior approval for the above land transaction nor intimated the department even after the above land transaction was executed.
13. The aforesaid charge was proved after examining three witnesses namely Gitaben Khodidas Vasoya, Khodidas Bhikhubhai Vasoya and Piyushbhai Shivabhai Gohel. The first witness Viz. Gitaben categorically stated in her deposition that the land in question as per her family arrangement was to be given to her three sister-in-laws but as per the version of sister- in-laws who told the husband of the complainant that the land is required to be transferred in the name of a person whose name would be suggested by Pravin Humbal (alleged land mafia and who happens to be the husband of the present petitioner).
14. The Inquiry Report also discloses the fact that the brother of the present petitioner Viz. Piyushbhai purchased the land for the present petitioner in her name and a consideration of Rs. Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 2,70,000/- was paid and that they are in touch with the said Pravin Humbal.
15. The brother of the petitioner also has admitted the fact that the said Pravin is engaged into purchase and sale of the land and in fact he is a broker. The brother of the present petitioner also admitted the fact that it was he who paid the entire consideration for the land transaction.
16. Since, the above charge was proved and this Court is not sitting in appeal over the above charge, the fact remains that the charge about the petitioner dressed in police uniform executed a sale deed in cash of Rs. 2,70,000/- never took prior approval nor intimated thereafter to the higher authority and the transaction has taken place.
17. It is an admitted position that the money never belonged to the present petitioner, it was paid by her brother and considering the overall facts and circumstances, the department imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner which the petitioner had duly paid.
Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
18. What is shocking is the fact that though the present petitioner had married the said Pravin Humbal and has stated in her defense dated 06.05.2015 that upon knowing about the activities of the Pravin Humbal, she has cut all the ties from 22.09.2015, while replying to the second show cause notice on 25.08.2019, the petitioner has signed the same and addressed the letter to the concerned officer as Mrs. M. P. Kumbal (Manishaben S. Gohel) However, at no point of time, she has disclosed the fact and even after taking a stand earlier that she has cut all the ties with the said Pravin Humbal, she has married with the same person. Considering the fact that the present petitioner is serving with the police department and at present holding the post of P.I. what is expected from the persons serving in the police department is that they possess highest standard of honesty, integrity, faithfulness and morality and therefore, it was expected from the petitioner to disclose the fact that she has married the said alleged land mafia - Pravin Humbal subsequently. But the said fact has never been disclosed by the petitioner as can be seen from the record and though the Court Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined has repeatedly asked learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma to point out that whether the petitioner has at any point of time informed the department that she has married the same person against whom the allegation of being land mafia are levelled, learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the petitioner also despite making his best efforts, could not point out a single sentence indicating that the petitioner has informed the department about her marriage with the land mafia.
19. As far as the submission of learned advocate Mr. Sharma about delay in departmental proceedings is concerned, the said submission is required to be considered on the basis of overall facts and circumstance of the case. Even as per the decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Sharma in case of State of A. P. V/s. N. Radhakishan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 19 has observed as under:-
"It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weight them to Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
20. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Raghavendra Narayan S/o. Ramdhar Prasad Narayan V/s. State of Gujarat after considering the series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs no. 18, 19 and 20 as under:-
"18. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others (supra), ordinarily, the Court may not quash the chargesheet or show-cause notice in the course of disciplinary proceedings, only on the ground of delay. It must examine the gravity or magnitude of the charges involved and the Court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers so as to arrive at a conclusion Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined "whether it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion."
19.After balancing all the pros and cons on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and after taking into consideration the nature of the charges against the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the charges against the petitioner are of grave magnitude. The scuttling of the departmental proceedings that has already been initiated by the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet would not be in the interest of clean and honest administration. The charges warrant a full-fledged departmental enquiry and cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay.
20. In the above circumstances, the Court does not consider it in the interest of justice or clean administration to exercise the power of judicial review in the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
21. The above decision indicates that what is paramount is the interest of clean and honest administration and therefore, every delay in departmental proceedings is required to be tested on the touchstone of the interest of clean and honest administration. In the instant case, the allegations against the present petitioner were serious in nature as the police officer working in the police department and that also on the sensitive department of CID (IB) and other executive post is not expected to keep any relation with any alleged land mafia. In the instant case, it is an admission on the part of the petitioner that right from 2006 - 2007 till 22.09.2014, she was in active touch with the said alleged land mafia - Pravin Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3323/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined but later on upon knowing about his activities, she has cut ties with him. However, during the pendency of the inquiry, as can be seen from the record and as stated on oath in the petition, subsequently the petitioner has married to the said land mafia and even her brother has also during the course of inquiry referred to him as "Jijaji" and therefore, with such serious charges, if such departmental proceedings which are not just concluded but when the petitioner has accepted the punishment by paying Rs. 10,000/- imposed as fine towards the punishment, I don't see any reason to interfere with the inquiry report on the ground of delay, in the interest of clean and honest administration.
22. Resultantly, the petition fails. The same is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon Feb 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:05:05 IST 2025