Vijaykumar Ishwarlal Salat vs Inquiry Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 3832 Guj

        C/SCA/13658/2020                                          CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021
                           VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13658 of 2020



HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT

Versus

1. INQUIRY OFFICER

2. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

========================================================== Appearance:

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR.SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 05/03/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Judicial Officer has

prayed for a writ, order or direction, quashing and setting

aside the order below Exh.384 in Departmental

Inquiry No.7 of 2016. The Application at Exh.384 was

moved by the Presenting Officer for production of certain

documents in context of the Charge­Sheet issued to the

Petitioner. By the impugned Order dated 16.09.2020, the

Inquiry Officer overruling the objections of the Petitioner

allowed the Application and permitted that the documents

be exhibited.

2. The facts in brief are that a Charge­Sheet dated

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

07.10.2016 was issued to the Petitioner. Imputations,

nine in number have been levelled against the Petitioner,

while the Petitioner was working as 7th Additional

District Judge, Surat, during the period from

25.07.2015 to 01.10.2015 and as 4th Additional

District Judge, Surat, during the period from

09.02.2016 to 09.05.2016. An Inquiry Officer was

appointed and the Departmental Inquiry proceeded in

context of the charges in question.

3. Mr. Ashish Dagli learned Advocate for the Petitioner

submits that a closing pursis has been filed by the

Presenting Officer at Exh.373 on 05.02.2019 and by the

Petitioner at Exh.376 on 24.12.2019. The inquiry is

practically concluded.

4. Mr. Dagli would further submit that the written

submissions were also filed and thereafter after the

proceedings having been adjourned on five occasions, the

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

Presenting Officer gave an Application at Exh.384 for

production of certain documents. The Petitioner filed

extensive written submissions opposing the Application

on various grounds. Some of the grounds on which the

Application was opposed, are as under:

(i) That it was not open for the Presenting Officer to

ask for documents to be exhibited, 70 in number, after the

inquiry proceedings have been practically concluded.

(ii) That once the inquiry had come to a stage wherein it

was almost concluded, production of documents was

clearly barred in view of Sub­Rule (14) of Rule 9 of the

Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1971.

(iii) Mr. Dagli would submit that the documents which

are sought to be produced were documents already relied

by the Petitioner and on record and therefore it was not

necessary for the Presenting Officer to seek permission to

produce such documents.

(iv) That production of documents is impermissible

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

inasmuch as it would entail a fresh round of litigation and

the same also being in violation of principles of natural

justice, ought to have not been permitted.

5. Mr. Shalin Mehta learned Senior Advocate appearing for

Respondent No.2 would submit that reading the

imputations in the Charge­Sheet would indicate that

there were instances where decisions were rendered in

several sessions cases which were considered as not in due

discharge of judicial duties and therefore the inquiry was

initiated.

6. He would further submit that reading of the Application

Exh.384 itself would indicate that the documents were

already annexed as a part of list of documents,

Annexure­III to the Charge­Sheet. The documents, some

of them were even part of the record produced by the

delinquent himself. No prejudice would be caused to the

Petitioner if such documents are allowed to be produced.

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

7. Inviting the Court's attention to the order impugned

below Exh.384, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta would

submit that certain documents which are part of the

Charge­Sheet were required to be produced and needed to

be exhibited. Strict rules of evidence would not apply to

the Departmental Proceedings. The documents which are

required to be produced are already marked as

Annexure­III and in one case, the witness could not be

examined and the documents were not in a position to be

proved, such documents are required to be produced on

record. As far as some other documents, are concerned

certified copies of the proceedings are required to be

produced and exhibited. No prejudice is caused to the

Petitioner as not only are some of them already produced

by the Petitioner here and though admittedly these

documents could have been produced at the relevant time

by the Presenting Officer, they are now sought to be

produced. He would submit that they are not new

documents and therefore Sub­Rule(14) of Rule 9 shall

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

not be applicable.

8. Having heard submissions made by the learned Counsel

for the respective parties, what appears is that the

Petitioner had even initially approached this Court by

filing Special Civil Application No.22558 of 2017

challenging the Charge­Sheet dated 07.10.2016. This

Court thought it fit not to exercise discretion in his favour

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage

of issuance of a Charge­Sheet.

9. Perusal of the Application Exh.384 and the order below

the Application would indicate that 70 documents are

enlisted to the Charge­Sheet at Annexure­III. What the

Presenting Officer sought to produce, by way of the

Application were such documents, which even included

those which were already brought on record by the

Petitioner himself.

10. Reading of the impugned order would indicate that the

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

Inquiry Officer has found that not only some of the

documents were part of the record produced by the

Petitioner/Delinquent himself, certain documents were

true copies received with the Charge­Sheet from the High

Court of Gujarat. Certified copies of such documents are

sought to be produced.

11. In other words, the documents which are sought to be

produced and which the Inquiry Officer so permitted by

the impugned order cannot be said to be production of

evidence not included in the list of documents given to the

Petitioner or calling for new evidence as envisaged under

Sub­Rule(14) of Rule 9 of Discipline and Appeal

Rules. The contentions of Shri Dagli therefore that this

amounts to bringing in new evidence, needs to be rejected.

12. Even otherwise, by the impugned order, what the Inquiry

Officer has done is, granted permission to produce such

documents on the record of a pending disciplinary

proceedings. The Petitioner will be given an opportunity

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

to deal with the documents so produced in the process of

leading evidence and/or by lodging his objections before

the Inquiry Officer. This he can do before the Inquiry

Officer, in absence of any prejudice that has been shown

by the Petitioner in the present case. Moreover, even

when the Inquiry Officer concludes and submits a report

and the same is under consideration before the

Disciplinary Authority, at an appropriate stage, if and

when a penalty is sought to be imposed, the grounds

raised in this Petition and on the question whether such

exercise violated the principles of natural justice, would

be available to the Petitioner while assailing the order of

penalty if the Disciplinary Authority so considers it fit to

impose. A remedy of Appeal also against the Order of

penalty would be available where such contentions raised

in the present Petition are so raised.

13. We therefore do not deem it fit to interfere with the Order

passed below Exh.384 at an interlocutory stage. When

the Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner are

C/SCA/13658/2020 CAVJUDGMENTDt. 05/03/2021 VIJAYKUMAR ISHWARLAL SALAT Versus INQUIRY OFFICER

still at large based on which the Inquiry Officer shall

adjudge the culpability of the Petitioner, if any, and when

the Report is under consideration before the Disciplinary

Authority who accordingly will take an appropriate

decision.

14. The Petition is therefore dismissed as being premature.

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH