DHARMENDRA G MANKAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a matter of regret that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court (Coram : C.K. Buch, J.) as back as on 2 4/09/2001, the concerned Officer had the guts to defy the said order and the interim order, unfortunately, is not yet complied with. It is also required to be noted that this Court (Coram : A.R. Dave, J.) passed the following order on 29.11.2001 :-

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed in the Department from 2/02/1965 as a Supervisor. Subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Engineer in 1980 and, ultimately, he retired from service on 30th June, 1997, while holding the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. A few days prior to his retirement, he was subjected to a charge-sheet dated 20/06/1997. The same is annexed as Annexure `A' at page 23 in the compilation. The aforesaid charge-sheet was issued in connection with the contract work which was undertaken between 1982 and 1985, and as per the charge-sheet, in connection with some contract work, the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duty and because of the same, there was financial loss to the Government of a sizable amount. As per the allegation, the concerned Contractor abandoned the work after 6.9.1985 and the petitioner was negligent in the matter of recovering the material, etc., from the Contractor. It was found that certain material was not available at the site and, ultimately, the Government suffered monetary loss. On that basis, departmental enquiry is initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) It is not in dispute that after receiving the said charge-sheet, the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June, 1997. The said departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner since 1997 and as per the averment in the petition, the same has not proceeded further, even though reply to the charge-sheet has been filed by the petitioner as back as in the year 1997. This shows how causally these enquiry proceedings are going on against Government employees. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, by his letter dated 16.8.1999, requested the authority to release the gratuity amount as per the Government Resolution to that effect. As per the provisions contained in Rule 189-B of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, provision is made as regards payment of gratuity. The aforesaid provision is annexed with the petition as Annexure `H'. The portion of Rule 189-B of the BCSR, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy, reads as under :-