LAWS(GJH)-2005-3-95

P H SHRIMALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 25, 2005
P.H.SHRIMALI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned AGP Ms.Reeta Chandarana waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioners have challenged condition No.2 contained in Government circular dated 10.2.04 by which it is provided that no Government servant after five years from the date of his retirement or voluntary retirement will be eligible to assist any Government servant in a departmental inquiry.

(3.) Petitioner No.1 at the time of filing of the petition was facing a departmental inquiry initiated against him vide chargesheet dated 11.8.03. Petitioner No.2 who is a retired Government servant was engaged by petitioner No.l to assist him in the said departmental proceedings. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the Government issued a circular dated 10.2.04 providing for certain terms and conditions to regulate the engagement of a defence assistant by delinquent Government servants facing departmental proceedings. Besides other conditions, condition No. 2 in the said circular dated 10,2.04, as noted, above provided that a Government servant after five years of his retirement or voluntary retirement, as the case may be, will not be eligible to assist a delinquent Government servant in departmental proceedings. The circular also provided that no assistant would be permitted to have more than seven cases on hand and permission will be granted to engage a particular retired Government servant to assist the delinquent only upon production of a certificate that he does not have more than 7 cases on hand at a time. It was also provided that if at any time, it is found that the behaviour, of the defence assistant is not proper or that there is any attempt on his part to delay the departmental proceedings, his appointment would be liable to be cancelled. On account of the said circular, petitioner No.1 was deprived of an opportunity to be represented by petitioner No.2 as his defence assistant.