RAJU SHAMBHUPRASAD VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order for quashing and setting aside the order bearing No. KTP-102000-1708-L-2 dated 31.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby, the pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for life time was inflicted upon the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Senior Scientific Assistant in the year 1974 in Vaccine Institute at Vadodara. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 08.05.2001 alleging certain irregularities and misconduct. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply against the said charge on 21.04.2003, thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report on 06.6.2003. The petitioner retired from the services upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.11.2005. Thereafter, on 31.08.2009, the disciplinary authority passed an order, and thereby, inflicted punishment of pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for the life time. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court for readdressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 08.05.2001 in respect of alleged irregularities and negligent act of the petitioner was alleged in respect of purchased of D. Fridge in the year 1994- 1995. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, in view of the condition stipulated by proviso b(ii) of Rule 189A of the BCS Rules, now known as GCS Rules, the departmental inquiry proceedings can not be sustained in relation to alleged incident, which has taken place more than 4 years before such institution. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the decision in a case of Nirmalaben B.Trivedi v. State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (3) G.L.H. 58 , and the decision given in a case of Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow reported in 2014 (7) SCC 260. It is further submitted that after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner-delinquent filed detailed reply before the Inquiry Officer, and the Inquiry Officer has recorded its finding on the basis of evidence on record out of 3 charges levelled against the petitioner, 2 charges were not proved, and 1 charge with respect to negligent attitude of the petitioner is partly proved. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the Inquiry Officer has also observed in his report that the authorities are not in a position to prove the charges by any cogent material/evidence and rather have failed to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. Despite such observations made by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for life time, which is disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent. It is further submitted that over and above the aforesaid punishment, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been withheld the amount, which is due and payable towards gratuity by order dated 29.05.2008. It is also submitted that the petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 08.05.2001 in respect of stale charges of 94 days 95. The inquiry proceedings continued and prolonged for a period of 8 years, and the petitioner was serving as Junior Scientific Officer at the relevant point of time, and he was not directly responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the machine. However, the charges levelled against him are in respect of irregularities committed in purchase of machine as well as negligent act in maintaining the said machine for which he is not directly responsible. However, ignoring this fact the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of Rs. 1,000/- pension cut for life time is excessive in nature and required to be set aside by this Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner upon attaining age of superannuation retired in the year 2005. However, the inquiry proceedings continued and disciplinary authority inflicted punishment in August 2009 in between the petitioner has time and again requested the authorities concerned to expedite the inquiry proceedings despite administrative instruction issued by the Government from time to time for conclusion of inquiry proceedings expeditiously the inquiry proceedings have been prolonged for a considerable long period. It is also submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 161 of 2009, and while disposing of the said petition directions were also given to the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry within reasonable period. However, the inquiry proceedings were prolonged, and ultimately, it was concluded in the year 2009 when punishment was inflicted by the disciplinary authority. By referring page 57 of the compilation, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the higher officers are also served with the charge-sheet alleging similar misconduct and irregularities, but till date as per the information available with the petitioner inquires have not concluded. It is also submitted that the higher officers have also retired from the services, but till date no adverse order is passed against them for deduction of any amount from the pension only present petitioner has been single out and victimize by such departmental inquiry though he was not directly responsible for the same.