Gujarat High Court
Vinaykant S. Brahmbhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2020
Author: A.G.Uraizee
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/SCA/9116/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9116 of 2020
==========================================================
VINAYKANT S. BRAHMBHATT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SAN ASSOCIATES LLP(8655) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 07/08/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Thakkar learned advocate for San Associates LLP for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent-State.
2. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner retired on 30.11.2016 from the post of Chief Engineer and on that day after office hours, at about 6:45 pm. [18.45 hours], the charge-sheet of the departmental inquiry in respect of events took place more than four years before the institution of the departmental proceedings. Relying upon Rule 24(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of P V Mahadevan vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board [2005 LawSuit (SC) 1062], M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India [2006 LawSuit (SC) 277], Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat [2018 LawSuit(Guj) 1182] and order dated 04.10.2019 in case of Priyavadan Ramanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 18885 of 2018 of this Court, he vehemently Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 08 00:59:03 IST 2020 C/SCA/9116/2020 ORDER submits that the institution of the departmental proceedings is barred. He therefore submitted that the petition requires consideration and during the pendency of the petition, the departmental proceedings needs to be stayed.
3. Learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the respondent State has opposed the prayer for staying of the departmental proceedings and urges that sometime may be given to respond to the petitioner and to point out that the departmental proceedings were initiated while the petitioner was in service.
4. Having considered the rival submissions it appears to be an admitted fact that the petitioner retired after office hours on 30.11.2016 from the post of Chief Engineer. It also appears to be an admitted position as is emerging from Annexure B page 25 that the charges of imputation was served on the petitioner on 30.11.2016 at 15.45 hours [6.45 pm.] It therefore appears that the memo of imputation of charges in respect of event from 2002- 2007 was served on the petitioner after he retired from service. Hence, the incidents are in respect of event which took place more than four years before the institution of departmental proceedings. Hence, let there be Notice returnable on 09.09.2020. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent No.1. Registry is directed to serve rest of the respondent via Email/Fax. Interim relief in terms of para 8C is granted till then.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J) Pallavi/Jyoti Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 08 00:59:03 IST 2020