D. K. SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition retired on 30-6-1995. An enquiry was instituted against him vide memorandum dated 26-6-1995. By the impugned order dated 4-12-1997 penalty of cut of Rs. 369/- from the pension amount on permanent basis has been inflicted.

(2.) At the material time the petitioner was holding the post of Industrial Promotion Officer in the Department of Commissioner, Cottage & Village Industries. One Haribhai Meghjibhai Dhamelia, Principal, Uttar Buniyadi Gram Vidyalaya, Dudhana, Tal. Palitana submitted a complaint dated 12-7-1991 stating that the proceedings with regard to proposal of Gram Vidyalaya, Dudhana for starting training classes of knitting was delayed by the delinquent for more than a year and he demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- for the said work which was paid to him by the institution. On the basis of the said complaint two charges were framed against the petitioner, firstly that he delayed proceedings and secondly he received bribe of Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner replied to the notice denying the allegation. On October 9, 1995 an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the enquiry the complainant, Principal Haribhai Meghjibhai did not appear. However, another witness Hirabhai Kanjibhai Padaya appeared and made a statement with respect to receipt of Rs. 2000/- by the petitioner on 12-7-1991. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of both the charges and submitted his enquiry report on 31-8-1996 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority passed 'order dated 19-4-1997 on the basis of enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty and imposing a penalty of cut of Rs. 300/- per month from his pension amount for a period of three years as per B.C.S.R. 189(A). The petitioner asked for the enquiry report which was supplied to him under communication dated 9-5-1997. Ultimately Disciplinary Authority by order dated 4-12-1997 imposed punishment of monthly cut of Rs. 369/- from his pension amount on permanent basis. The order also disclosed that the said order was passed after consultation with Gujarat Public Service Commission.

(3.) Mr. Girish Patel, learned Sr. Counsel has raised various contentions challenging the order dated 4-12-1997. It is contended that the entire enquiry is vitiated as there is delay of more than five years in instituting the enquiry. Complaint against the petitioner was filed in the year 1991 and the enquiry was instituted in the year 1995 only four days before the retirement.It is submitted that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of delay inasmuch as the star witness in the case, i.e. the Principal of the Vidyalaya, Haribhai Meghjibhai on account of retirement did not appear before the Enquiry Officer depriving the petitioner of allegations made in his complaint. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570. In the said case the court held that delay in departmental enquiry can be put forward as ground for quashing charges, the court has to weigh all the factors for and against the delinquent officer and come to a conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances. In that case the delay of 51/2 years, on its own facts were not considered sufficient to quash the enquiry. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which had quashed the Departmental proceedings on the ground of delay. The factor in favour of the petitioner for quashing of enquiry on the ground of delay, urged is that he has been deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the original complainant. A discussion of the evidence hereinafter will show that there is otherwise sufficient material on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner delinquent and as such no substantial prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of delay in enquiry. It is also contended that every employee has a rational expectation to retire peacefully. There is no substance in this contention also. The person who has served the department for long is also expected to go home with clean. chit. If there is any allegation against him he must be prepared to answer the same and get a clean chit to retire peacefully.