STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMCHANDRA JAYANTILAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, the learned A.G.P. for the appellant State of Gujarat and another and Mr. Dipen Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the original writ applicant.

(2.) The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application filed by the writ applicant has observed in paras, 8, 9, 10 and 11 asunder:

(3.) Thus, it appears to be a case in which the writ applicant came to be charged with misconduct in the form of preparing one false travelling allowance bill to the tune of Rs.300/-. The misconduct alleged against the writ applicant is of the year 1992. For the first time after five years, the departmental chargesheet came to be issued. On certain technical grounds, the chargesheet was dropped on 12th May 2000. After a period of almost more than one year, a fresh chargesheet was issued, and later, the final order of dismissal from service came to be passed. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Rajendra Kumar Shukla , 2018 14 SCC 92 and a judgement of this High Court in the case of G. M. Gohil, Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Gujarat Housing Board , 2019 4 GLR 3251. Mr. Pandya, the learned A.G.P. is right to a certain extent in contending that mere delay in initiating the departmental inquiry by itself may not be sufficient to quash and set aside the final order of penalty that the competent authority may impose. However, at the same time, he is right in submitting that the facts of each case should be looked into before applying the test of prejudice. In the case on hand, having regard to the facts discussed by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, what has been observed in para 11 of the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.