A S SINDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition for quashing and setting aside the departmental inquiry instituted against the petitioner vide chargesheet dated 27/9/94 has been filed in the following circumstances. The facts about the petitioner's progress in the service are that the petitioner joined as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department on 30/5/61. He was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 28/1/71 and was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department on 8/6/84. The petitioner received promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer thereafter on 21/2/94 w.e.f. 30/6/92 and from the said post, the petitioner retired on 31/3/99 while working at Palanpur Irrigation Canal. This goes to show that the petitioner has been considered and accorded promotions as and when it has fallen due to him and there is a satisfactory progress in achieving higher post in service. While the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal between 8/6/84 to 15/7/85, the purchases were being made for the project of bricks. During this period, the petitioner had approved purchases of 77,600 bricks required for the bricks lining of the work of canal urgently as per requirement placed before it by the Deputy Executive Engineer and the same has also received approval of the Superintending Engineer. In connection with the purchases made between 1983-84 and 1984-85 of the bricks at the said project, an inquiry was instituted by the respondents in September 1994, that is to say, after about 10 years of the alleged transaction. In the said inquiry, the petitioner was served with the chargesheet dated 2 7/09/1994. The charge to which the petitioner was subjected that, during 1984-85, while purchasing bricks worth Rs.40,279.00, which were more than Rs.30,000.00, the petitioner has not followed the requisite procedure before directing purchases of the bricks which has resulted in loss of Rs.1,240.00 only as a result of purchases made at the higher market price. The charge is only of making purchases by ignoring the rules resulting in financial loss of Rs.1,240.00. After service of chargesheet in 1994, an inquiry officer was for the first time appointed on 7/1/1999. The inquiry officer was Departmental Inquiry Commissioner. However, the said office of inquiry commissioner was closed in September 1999 and thereafter, a new inquiry officer has been appointed who is a retired chief engineer from the penal of officers prepared by the Department in consultation with the General Administration Department. The petitioner on his retirement has been released provisional pension, however finalization of his pension has not taken place nor other retiral benefits have been computed and given tot he petitioner, nor he is permitted to commute the pension as per rules because of the pendency of the aforesaid inquiry.

(2.) The petitioner has in the aforesaid circumstances challenged the continuous of the inquiry against him inter alia on the ground that the inquiry itself having been instituted more than 10 years after the alleged date of incident and thereafter, no efforts have been made even to appoint the inquiry officer for more than 5 years, the proceedings must be quashed as being arbitrary, particularly keeping in view that the service record of the petitioner apart from this inquiry is otherwise clean which has reflected from the regular promotions being granted to the petitioner since the date of his recruitment and no charge other than technical lapses in following the rules has been levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet of 1994. Apart from the merits of the case, the maximum loss which has been caused to the State as a result of non-adherence to the rules is assessed in the chargesheet at Rs.1,240/only, which can hardly justify withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner has also offered that at any rate, in order to bring the curtain down on the issue, he is prepared to deduction of Rs.1,240.00, the total amount of loss claimed to have been caused to the State because of the alleged non-adherence to the rules by the petitioner from the pensionary dues or if directed, the petitioner is prepared to pay the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that an inquiry having been instituted in respect of financial irregularity, the respondents be allowed to continue with the inquiry inasmuch as under the rules particularly rule 189-A and 189-B of the BCSR Rules, the respondents have right to order deduction in pension or effect recovery from the pension by making appropriate orders. However, the above facts about the promotion and the import of charge against the petitioner are not denied.