SHANTILAL K NAIK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Leakages in a dam and delays in inquiry' may aptly be described as a title to this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. What is prayed for by the petitioner may be reproduced :

(2.) Facts in brief : On 1-12-1992 impugned charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner and other concerned employees in respect of serious and grave negligence on their part in the carrying out of, supervision, measurements regarding and presentation of bills concerning the earthen work in the construction of Lakhigam dam/Lakhi dam which was constructed in 1979-82, resulting in leakage emerging through weep holes provided in the downstream retaining wall on both the sides. Detailed allegations in this respect are contained in the statement of imputations annexed with the charge-sheet.

(3.) The petitioner's case is : The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in February, 1970. In December 1978 he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer. In 1986 he became due for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Even then the petitioner did not protest against promotions of his seniors to that post but as the petitioner came to know that his case has not been put up before the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'D.P.C.') which met in October 1992, he inquired into the matter and learnt, that his case has not been considered because of the contemplated issuance of charge-sheet. The petitioner was served with the impugned charge-sheet dated 1-12-1992 on 11-12-1992. It is the petitioner's case that he was posted at Ukai Circle in February 1980 and worked there upto June 1981, whereas the Lakhigam dam was completed in 1982, i.e., within about three years of its commencement. The initial work was done under petitioner's supervision but substantial work of construction of superstructure was done under the supervision of other officers who succeeded him. When the preliminary inquiry was held in 1988 he had an occasion to give reply. It is the petitioner's say that there is slight difference in the charges under the preliminary inquiry and the impugned charge-sheet. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that there is no justification at the end of the respondent to proceed with the charges after a delay of about a decade particularly when the petitioner is on the verge of his promotion.