Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat - Through ... vs Kanaiyalal Mohanlal Acharya - ... on 17 June, 2021
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
C/LPA/475/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 475 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4041 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 475 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1002 of 2021
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 475 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
Versus
KANAIYALAL MOHANLAL ACHARYA - RANGE FOREST OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAN JAISWAL AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Heard Mr.Dhawan Jaiswal, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the appellant - State.
2. In the facts of this case, there is delay of 24 days
caused in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal No.475 of
2021 by the appellant herein (original respondent) and
hence the Civil Application No.1002 of 2021 is preferred
for condonation of the delay. Since the delay of 24 days
caused in preferring the present Appeal is satisfactorily
C/LPA/475/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
explained, the delay is condoned. Civil Application
No.1002 of 2021 stands disposed of.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common
oral order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Special Civil Application No.4041 of 2011, the
State has preferred this Appeal under clause 15 of the
Letters Patent Act.
4. The respondent herein (original petitioner)
approached this Court by way of Writ Petition being
Special Civil Application No.4041 of 2021 and contended
that the impugned chage-sheet dated 09.04.2010, issued
to the respondent herein (original petitioner) for alleged
misconduct for a period between the year 1998 and
1999, is issued after more than 10 years. It was further
contended that the appellant - State should have been
vigilant enough to solve their inter-se querries and should
have issued charge-sheet immediately to the respondent
herein (original petitioner). Reliance was placed on the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UCO
Bank and others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92.
4.1 It may be noted that the said Writ Petition was heard
along with Special Civil Application No.3321 of 2011 by
the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by
common oral order dated 22.01.2020 was pleased to
allow the petition and impugned charge-sheet dated
C/LPA/475/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
09.04.2010 came to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr.Dhavan Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government
Pleader contended that the learned Single Judge ought
not to have interfered with the charge-sheet even though
the same was given for alleged misconduct of the year
1998-99. It was contended by learned Assistant
Government Pleader that it came to notice of the
department only in the year 2002 and immediately
thereafter inquiry was handed over to the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Vigilance, Surat. It was contended
by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jaiswal that
the charge-sheet has been issued due to negligence and
irregularities caused in performance of duty prescribed
under Article 6 (C) of Chapter II of the Gujarat Forest
Manual. It was further contended by Mr.Jaiswal that the
learned Single Judge has committed an error in quashing
the impugned charge-sheet on the ground of delay.
According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the
learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and
others vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra).
5.1 On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by
learned Assistant Government Pleader that the appeal
deserves consideration and the same deserves to be
allowed. No other submissions are made.
C/LPA/475/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
6. Mere perusal of the record clearly suggests that the
impugned charge-sheet dated 09.04.2010 was issued to
the respondent herein (original petitioner) after over a
period of more than 12 years. The learned Single Judge
has rightly considered the ratio laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Rajendra
Shankar Shukla (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was pleased to quash and set aside the similar
charge-sheet issued after delay of about seven years and
as such the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the
impugned belated charge-sheet issued after a period of
more than 12 years in the instant case.
6.1 It may further be noted that similar view has been
expressed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No.387 of 2021 which came to be
dismissed by vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2021.
The similar view has been expressed by this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.461 of 2021 vide judgment and
order dated 16.06.2021.
7. We are in total agreement with the reasonings given
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any
error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
which may require interference of this Court in exercise
of powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act.
8. For the reasons above, the present appeal being
C/LPA/475/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2021
meritless deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed
accordingly. Connected Civil Application for Stay also
stands disposed of.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
