ZENUL ABEDIN GULAMNABI MALEK Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate waives service of Rule for the respondents. The petitioner's services have been terminated by order dated 4-11-1995. He was served with charge-sheet dated 29-9-1994. By the said memo, the petitioner, who was holding the office of Executive Engineer of Wanakbori, TPS was informed that a departmental enquiry has been instituted against him. He was asked to submit reply of the charges as stated in the accompanied Article of charges. The Article of Charges reads as follows :

(2.) I have heard Mr. H. K. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate for the Gujarat Electricity Board. I have also persued the record produced before me. In the preceding paragraphs, I have reproduced the charge-sheet and also the report of the Inquiry Officer. The article of charges, contains charges of misconduct of breach of regulations 1, 5, 7, 25 and 30 of Schedule 'A' appended to the Discipline and Appeal Rules. A reading of the inquiry report shows that the Inquiry Officer has not given any finding on each of the charges and he simply, on certain informal talks with the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner has admitted the guilt. In fact, the petitioner has not admitted the guilt, but he has only given explanation. He has also stated before the Disciplinary Authority that there were certain compelling reasons for which he had to remain absent. He was granted leave on all occasions considering the genuineness of the reasons.

(3.) It is true that for an Inquiry Officer it is not necessary to state his conclusions minutely on each of the questions raised and the report also need not contain all the attributes of judgment passed by the Court but a report which is based only on opinion derived by oral talks, and not based on proper recorded evidence, is no enquiry report in the eye of law or at least the enquiry is not in order. Any order imposing penalty on the basis of such report is void. In the case in hand the Inquiry Officer has not even bothered to record the statement of the petitioner. He has not even looked into the record. He simply informally talked to the petitioner even without warning that any admission in the informal talk will be construed as admission, and the same shall be used against him. The Inquiry Officer quickly submitted a sketchy repport, using the admission against the pertitioner without considering the explanation given by him. Thus, in my view, the impugned order of termination based on such enquiry report is illegal and void, which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3-A. In view of the aforesaid, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of termination dated 4-11-1995 and all other consequential orders are quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has now retired on 31-5-1997, it will not be appropriate to give liberty to the respondent to proceed with a fresh enquiry. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits, as if no order of termination has been passed. Rule made absolute accordingly.