N H MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has a checkered history of litigations, first Special Civil Application, thereafter Civil Application, thereafter contempt application and again the present Special Civil Application. The petitioner who was working as Executive Engineer was subjected to departmental inquiry. Inquiry was against 22 officers including retired Superintending Engineer, retired Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineers and Deputy Engineers. Commissioner of Inquiries & Ex Officio Secretary to the Government Shri T.V. Krishnamurty conducted the inquiry. After completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer came to a conclusion against the petitioner herein. The inquiry report as delivered by the Inquiry Officer is not produced on record. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has produced 7 typed pages and thereafter he has produced page 33 which may be relevant to the petitioner. It appears from the finding that the petitioner was executive Engineer in charge of the Public Health, Scarcity Division at Himmatnagar during scarcity of 1972-73. The petitioner was chargesheeted for excessive payment for drilling in three tube wells in Sabarkantha District, during 1972-73. These tube wells are from amongst the list of 78 tube wells where excessive drilling had been found out, out of 229 tube wells during the scarcity of 1972-73. During the scarcity of 1972-73, work of tube wells was undertaken at villages Vakhtapur, Taluka Prantij, Jenpur village, Taluka Prantij and Tentarda village, Taluka Prantij.

(2.) It was the case of the delinquent - petitioner that, as per his statement on 31.8.81, excessive drilling was necessary because the debris falls while lowering of the pipes which scrape through the walls of the bore holes. The extra drilling in these three bores ranged from 11.58 mtrs. to 20.84 mtrs. It seems that the Inquiry Officer considering the evidence of the witnesses arrived at a conclusion that there was extra drilling than the depth of the gravel pipes which appeared to be normal. However, there was excessive drilling which could have been saved. Had the Executive Engineer used his experience and guided the Deputy Engineer under him to be careful, he could have avoided the extra cost to the government amounting to Rs. 4,950.00. The Court is not concerned with the outcome of the inquiries against other officers as the matter is not pertaining to other officers. However, the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submitted that out of 22 officers, one died and 2 officers were exonerated (namely S.T. Motwani, Executive Engineer and Shri R.M. Nasikar, Deputy Executive Engineer). It is also pointed out that there was deduction of salary for particular period. The persons were reverted to lower post. There was stoppage of promotion. There was cut in pension. It was submitted that considering the loss, punishment was imposed. On the basis of the inquiry report, by an order of the Hon'ble Governor dated 19th August, 1987, it was held that the report is accepted and the charges made against the delinquent are proved. However, considering the decision, it was decided to impose penalty of "censure" only. Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, if read, it becomes clear that part III of the Discipline Rules refers to discipline wherein penalties are indicated. One of the minor penalties is censure.

(3.) As there was delay in decision, it seems that the petitioner moved the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No. 2162/86. However, the learned Single Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the government to complete the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. It was also observed that failing this the Court will be constrained to quash the inquiry proceedings inasmuch as the inquiries were pending for very long time. Liberty was reserved to move the Court again even by filing a note. The learned Single Judge observed by an order dated 4.7.86 that if the petitioner is exonerated at the end of the inquiry, the question of his promotion as per the assessment contained in the sealed cover shall be immediately implemented.