RAMESHBHAI D PATEL Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the appellant as the Special Civil Applications being Special Civil Application No. 3506 of 2010 and 3508 of 2010 filed by him challenging the order dated 3.2.2007 & 29.01.2007 respectively passed by the authorities, whereunder, his services came to be terminated, were rejected by learned Single Judge vide two separate orders dated 25.3.2010. As the appellant is same and subject matter of appeals are termination from services of the appellant, both these Letters Patent Appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Facts, as could be culled out from the proceedings to be narrated in brief, would indicate that the appellant was working as a Clerk at Primary Health Centre, Rajuwadiya, Taluka Nandod, District Bharuch. It is alleged that the appellant had misappropriated an amount of Rs.24,122-21ps. Therefore, an order was passed on 27th June 1988 to conduct a departmental inquiry against the appellant. The said order along with the charge was served upon the appellant vide letter dated 22nd December 1997. Thereafter, the appellant was served upon the inquiry report vide letter dated 14th July 2006. The appellant submitted his reply on 30th December 2006. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.3 vide order dated 03rd February 2007 dismissed the appellant from his service, which came to be assailed by the appellant by preferring an appeal being Appeal No.3 of 2007. The said appeal ultimately came to be dismissed vide order dated 17th December 2009. Hence, appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 3506 of 2010.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that delay in inquiry has resulted into vitiating the same and therefore, the order of punishment may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision in case of A.U. Kureshi Vs. High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 6164 of 2002 and judgment in case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 Lawsuit(SC) 1062 contended that the inquiry could not have been prolonged for such a period and therefore, on this count also, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.