RAGHUNATH HIRMAN WAGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Government servant, challenges the Order dated 2nd March, 1998 made by the State Government imposing deduction of Rs. 589.50p. from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of ten years. On 21st August. 1993. disciplinary proceeding came to be initiated against the petitioner, a Head Constable under the District Superintendent of Police, Valsad. for several acts of misconduct amounting to lack of integrity and of conduct, unbecoming of a Police Officer. The alleged acts of misconduct were committed by the petitioner in respect of a criminal complaint lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Vansda which came to be referred to the Police for investigation as Police Station Register M. Case No.6 of 1987. Pending the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 1995. The disciplinary proceeding continued against the petitioner under Rule 189A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. Considering the extent of guilt proved against the petitioner, the aforesaid penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Supehia has submitted that in conducting the said disciplinary proceeding, breach of aforesaid Rule 189A has been committed. The impugned order of deduction in pension has been made by the State Government. By such order, the petitioner is deprived of a right to appeal before the Appellate Authority and to revision before the Stale Government. He has also submitted that the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated on account of delay. He has submitted that the incidents in question were that of the year 1988 for which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated as late as in the year 1993. The petitioner has not been given fair opportunity of defence inasmuch as the documents demanded by the petitioner in his defence were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been given opportunity of personal hearing before (he State Government.

(3.) Mr. Supehia has submitted that the aforesaid Rule 189-A provides that in case where a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the delinquent Government servant before his retirement, such proceeding shall, after his retirement, be deemed to be a proceeding under the said Rule 189-A and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced. He has submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was initiated by the District Superintendent of Police. Under the Police [Punishment & Appeal] Rules, it is the District Superintendent of Police who is the disciplinary authority. The said inquiry, therefore, should have been completed by the District Superintendent of Police. In that case, the petitioner would have had opportunity of departmental appeal before the appellate authority and of revision before the State Government.