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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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