Narmada Water Resource And ... vs Rajesh Chamanlal Tank
2021 Latest Caselaw 16458 Guj

     C/LPA/947/2021                                ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 947 of 2021

           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13733 of 2018

==========================================================
     NARMADA WATER RESOURCE AND KALPSAR DEPARTMENT
                  THROUGH SECRETARY
                         Versus
                 RAJESH CHAMANLAL TANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP, (1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR NL RAMNANI(2400) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       ARAVIND KUMAR
       and
       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                              Date : 21/10/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. The State is in appeal questioning the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 13733 of 2018 dated 30.09.2019, whereunder petition filed by the respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be allowed and departmental proceedings initiated against the first respondent herein came to be quashed. Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates, it is taken up for final disposal since it lies in a narrow compass.

2. During 1996 - 1999, petitioner was serving as an Executive Engineer in Narmada Water Resources Kalpsar Department (for short "Nigam") and was incharge of the work

C/LPA/947/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021

of Minors Off-Taking from Aachhod Distributory Canal. On account of certain alleged illegalities committed, a chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner and similarly placed persons on 17.10.2011. However, no documents referred to and relied upon by the department was furnished to the delinquent officials. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet on 28.02.2012. Thereafter on 31.07.2013, petitioner retired from the service on attaining age of superannuation. Surprisingly, a revised chargesheet came to be issued on 03.06.2014 which was also not accompanied by the relied upon documents. The said chargesheet was also replied to by the petitioner by submitting a detailed and exhaustive reply on 19.08.2014. Thereafter, petitioner has made repeated requests and demands for supply of documents, which was not heeded to. On 21.05.2016, after lapse of two years, the Investigating Officer was appointed and in the departmental proceedings which was commenced on 29.08.2016, documents relied upon by the department in support of the imputation of charges was not furnished though sought for. During the course of inquiry, petitioner made fervent plea to supply the documents relied upon and referred to in the chargesheet and despite the competent authority directing the department to file all the documents, for reasons best known it was not filed. Even during the course of inquiry proceedings, petitioner had consistently revived his prayer for grant of copies which also did not find favour. In fact the inquiry officer by order dated 08.05.2017 had directed the appellant herein to provide documents to the delinquent employee namely the petitioner on or before 24.05.2017 and said direction was also not complied. It is in this background, inquiry proceeded. Hence,

C/LPA/947/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021

petitioner approached the learned Single Judge for quashing of the inquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge after considering the objection filed to the special civil application and after examining the rival contentions raised at the Bar, has accepted the plea of the petitioner and quashed the inquiry proceedings on two grounds namely ;

(i) that the proceedings has been proceeded without any reasonable cause or in other words, there has been unreasonable delay in commencing and concluding the departmental action;

(ii) the documents sought for by the petitioner was not furnished despite repeated requests.

Hence, on these two grounds, the learned Single Judge has allowed the application and has quashed the inquiry proceedings. Hence, this intra-court appeal.

3. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the appellant and Mr. N.L. Ramnani appearing for the respondent No. 1 i.e. the petitioner, we notice that first chargesheet which came to be issued to the petitioner was after a lapse of 12 years from the date of alleged incident. Even after issuance of chargesheet for a period of four years, no inquiry officer was appointed and during the interregnum period, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is thereafter a revised chargesheet was issued and even the documents relied upon in the second chargesheet was not furnished to the petitioner. It is trite law that delay in initiating disciplinary

C/LPA/947/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021

proceedings would vitiate the inquiry proceedings. In the normal course, the disciplinary proceedings must commence at an early date and should be completed without much delay. However, there is no hard and fast rule as to delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or departmental inquiry and/or its continuation even after retirement and that by itself would not vitiate the proceedings and it has to be determined on the facts and circumstances obtained in each case. For this proposition, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab versus Prem Swaroop reported in (2008) 12 SCC 522, can be looked up. Had the delay been explained, the proceedings which has been quashed in the instant case would have called for interference. In the instant case, no such efforts have been made by the State by showing just and reasonable cause for delay in not only initiating the proceedings but also in concluding the proceedings. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan versus M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, to hold that on account of delay in initiating the inquiry for a period of 10 years and there being no convincing explanation offered, much less sufficient cause, it has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, inquiry proceedings initiated against petitioner has been quashed. In the instant case, as noticed already herein-above, for an incident which had occurred during the year 1996-99, the first chargesheet came to be issued on 17.10.2011 i.e. after a lapse of 12 years, no explanation much less reasonable explanation was given by the State explaining the cause for such delay. That apart, we notice that in the instant case, in both the chargesheets which came to be issued to the petitioner,

C/LPA/947/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021

certain documents were relied upon by the department to drive home the alleged guilt of the chargesheeted employee namely the petitioner. The said documents were not furnished to the petitioner and this is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is again trite law that relied upon documents are necessarily required to be furnished to the delinquent employee as otherwise such employee would be deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend his/her case effectively in the departmental proceedings. There is not even a whisper in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge, about any document having been furnished to the delinquent employee namely petitioner, much less the documents relied upon in the chargesheet.

4. Yet another fact which cannot go unnoticed by this Court is that not only petitioner, in the instant case was issued with the chargesheet, as already noticed hereinabove for several other persons who is similarly placed. Infact one such employee or delinquent employee who was visited with an order dated 04.10.2019 had approached the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 18885 of 2018, whereunder learned Single Judge had taken the similar view which was taken in the order impugned in the present appeal and had quashed the chargesheet as well as the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner therein which was pursuant to the final report of the inquiry and this was accepted by the department, the Deputy Secretary of the State of Gujarat vide order dated 07.01.2020 had directed for release of dues to the petitioner in the said petition. Petitioner in the instant case being a co-employee and similarly placed as that of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 18885 of 2018 cannot

C/LPA/947/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/10/2021

be discriminated or in other words it has to be necessarily held that he stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 18885 of 2018 and for this reason also, the order of learned Single Judge quashing the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner deserves to be affirmed.

5. Accordingly we proceed to pass following

ORDER

(i) The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

         (ii)    The     order   dated      30.09.2019       passed         by
                 learned     Single      Judge       in    Special       Civil
                 Application     No.     13733       of    2018      stands
                 affirmed.
         (iii)   No order as to costs.


                 Pending     civil    applications        stand     consigned           to

records as they would not survive for consideration.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) AMAR SINGH