AVINASH MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 28. 11. 1995 and prays for quashing of the same on the ground that for the incidents of 1983-84 and after a period of 11 years and without there being any explanation of such a delay and also on the ground that in a successive preliminary inquiry held at the relevant time nothing was found against the petitioner and thus issuance of the charge-sheet after lapse of 11 years is highly unjustified.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the Department of Irrigation having been promoted so in the year 1988. He had to get the promotion after approaching the High Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3665/88. It is stated that some preliminary inquiry was held in the year 1988 relating to the matter of the year 1983-84 when he was holding the post of Assistant Engineer Gang Canal Channel. It is stated that for the construction of Gang Canal Channel because of emergent and urgent work to be done and to complete the earth work within stipulated period, the petitioner had sought permission from the higher authorities to engage certain tractors for the period of completion of earth work. Proper record was maintained. It is stated that some inquiry was held in regard to hiring charges about the tractors and one Jagdish Gehlot Chief Engineer had given the finding that the petitioner was not guilty at all. Not satisfied with the preliminary inquiry, a second preliminary inquiry was ordered and even the petitioner was exonerated in second preliminary inquiry be Shri K. S. Kang. Yet another inquiry was held by Shri Mahesh Kumar Chief Engineer. He had also given finding in favour of the petitioner, but still a charge-sheet Annexure-1 has been issued to the petitioner on 28. 11. 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Government instructions Annexure-3 dated 16. 3. 1980 if no case is made out in the preliminary inquiry, no action could be ordered to be held taken against the petitioner.

(3.) YET in another case, the Chief Secretary to Govt. to Andhra Pradesh vs. R. Veerabhadram (2), the Supreme Court observed as under- "so far as the second point is concerned, the Tribunal has, on the material before it, persuaded itself to the view that it would be unreasonable to permit the continuation of the enquiry after the lapse of a decade after the alleged misconduct. The Tribunal noticed that while the charge against the respondent that while functioning as a statutory authority to deal with the cases under the land ceiling law had accepted a birth certificate in order to come to the conclusion that the person referred to therein had attained the age of majority and entitled to the benefit of an additional ceiling area and that the respondent had, instead of rejecting the claim, deliberately, overloo- ked the tell-tale interpolations in the documents that, respondent, even while the appeal against his determination was pending before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, had himself proposed to correct the order on the ground that he had since come to suspect that the declarant had practised fraud on him and that the mistake should not be left uncorrected. The Tribunal also noticed the inaction on the part of the disciplinary authority in pursuing the enquiry with reasonable diligence. " "the question is whether this view of the Tribunal should be interfered with under Article 136. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that it is not an appropriate case where we should, interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. "