R R PATEL Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner who was serving as a Junior Clerk in Kheda District Panchayat. At the relevant time he was placed under Taluka Panchayat, Petlad. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed in November 1968 on the post of Junior Clerk in the Panchayat and that he was holding the same post even on the day of filing the present petition. It is case of the petitioner that from 14.11.1968 to 16.1.1980 the he was in active service and that thereafter the petitioner had proceeded on leave in January 1980 after submitting a leave report. It is his case that he was keeping indifferent health and was also not in proper state of mind and therefore, he had to remain on long leave and accordingly he remained on leave upto 25.7.1984. The petitioner was not informed anything by the office as to what had happened to his leave. Nor was he subjected to any inquiry by the department.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner having felt slightly better went to resume duty in July 1984, but he was not given posting order. Subsequently by letter dated 15.1.1985 the petitioner was served with charge sheet in which it was mentioned that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 16.1.1980, but that notice could not be served on him as he had not accepted the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner replied to the said notice, which was in the form of charge sheet, by his letter dated 8.2.1985. In the reply the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was sick and even medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Kheda was also sent along with the application and that the petitioner had applied for leave from time to time in the prescribed form. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.1.1986 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the petitioner has not given any leave report from 31.7.1980 and therefore, it is proposed that he should be removed from service and the petitioner was asked to give a reply to the same. The petitioner replied to the said letter dated 10.1.1986 by his reply dated 15.1.1986, but as no decision was taken about his posting, the petitioner again wrote a letter dated 26.6.1986 and in response to that the petitioner was informed by letter dated 17.7.1986 that as inquiry is pending against the petitioner; after conclusion of said inquiry, appropriate orders will be passed. It is the case of the petitioner that since 1984 the petitioner had tried his level best to get a posting order but though neither any inquiry was pending nor he was placed under suspension, the respondents did not give him posting order and therefore, said action of the respondents be held to be highly unjust, arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 11.2.1987, respondent no.1 had appointed an inquiry officer to hold inquiry against the petitioner and though the appointing authority of the petitioner is Deputy DDO; yet the order appointing inquiry officer was passed by respondent no.1, i.e. DDO, who in fact is the appellate authority. Therefore, initiation of inquiry itself is illegal.