KULDIP N. SHARMA (IPS) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by its order dtd. 11/8/2021 rejected the Miscellaneous Application No.198 of 2021 of the petitioner, thereby refusing to condone the delay of seven years, eight months and twenty-seven days in filing the Original Application No.173 of 2021, consequentially the Original Application also stood dismissed.

(2.) In the Original Application before the Tribunal, the petitioner wanted a direction against the respondents to produce all documents, files and correspondence between the Home Department and State Government leading to issuance of memorandum of charge dtd. 15/9/2012 as well as order dtd. 30/4/2020. It was prayed to declare the said memorandum of charge, issued by the Principal Secretary, Home Department to be without authority in law. It was next prayed to set aside the aforementioned memorandum of charge and the order, further to command the respondents to release the retirement benefits.

(3.) Noticing the facts in the background, the petitioner happens to be an Officer of Indian Police Service. He was issued show-cause notice and thereafter charge-sheet dtd. 15/9/2012 by respondent No.3. Looking briefly at the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was stated that when the petitioner was transferred and appointed as Managing Director, Gujarat Sheep and Wool Development Corporation in November, 2009, he retained the services of four police personnel called orderlies, named in the charge-sheet, who were posted under the petitioner when the petitioner was Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural) and Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city. The petitioner took those personnel with him to take them under him to get work done from them even while working as Managing Director. It was stated that the post of the Managing Director was a civilian post and it was not permissible to take work from the orderlies from the police department. It was stated that by taking work from the police personnel at his Ahmedabad residence, provisions of Gujarat Manual, Part-III were breached by the petitioner.