Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not at fault for the charge-sheet which was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad as, in the midst of the investigation, the petitioner was transferred and, therefore, successor of the petitioner, before filing charge-sheet in the trial court, ought to have verified whether everything is in order or not? According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, respondent-authorities have completely ignored the defence of the petitioner that basis for Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner is the observations made by the learned trial Judge and, therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was some lacuna in the investigation at the level of the petitioner, the petitioner had not completed the investigation because of his transfer by the respondent - authorities and, therefore, it was for the successor - Investigating Officer to see that the investigation is completed properly before charge-sheet is filed. Secondly, learned advocate Mr.Vyas contended that the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. w.e.f. 31.08.2002 and it is before two months of his retirement, impugned order came to be passed which is not permissible in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas contended that the case against the petitioner is of no evidence and at least for two charges, the Inquiry Officer held that Charge Nos.1 and 4 are not proved and further, note of disagreement contained nothing and the authorities have not pointed out as to how the Inquiry Officer was wrong in coming to the conclusion that Charge Nos.1 and 4 stood proved against the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas further contended that even Charge Nos.2 and 3 which, the Inquiry Officer held to be proved, there was no evidence to come to such conclusion and under these circumstances, at least for the said two charges, it can be said that the case against the petitioner is of no evidence. Lastly, learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner, after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and another V/s. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 75, contended that considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is not a case of dismissal or removal from the service, still net effect of the order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment is that the petitioner is left to the mercy of the authorities whether the petitioner would get pension or not and if yes, to what extent?