Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has invited this Court s attention to the charge-sheet at page no.17 dated 25.10.2012, which pertains to an incident, which is said to have occurred during the petitioner s working as Assistant Executive Engineer from 02.12.1989 to 28.08.2002 and the petitioner had in fact indicated in his reply that the incident which is alleged to have occurred on account of so called negligence was pertaining to the year 1997 and even respondents have also quoted 1995 date of work order and bills of 1999.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities namely;
(i) in case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Md, T.N. Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 636,
(ii) in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1308 and
(iii) in case of C.B. Kotecha Vs. State Of Gujarat Through Secretary & Ors., decided on 02.12.2011 by this Court in Civil Application No.12022 of 2011.
in support of his submission that the charge-sheet could not have been chosen to be issued at a stage when the petitioner was to retire within a period of 6 days from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet does not contain any explanation qua delay in issuing the same.
4. Hence, let there be a notice for final disposal, returnable on 11.03.2013. The reply affidavit, if any, to be filed on or before the returnable date, or else the Court will be constrained to dispose of this matter in light of the judgments cited and the prayers made, as prima facie there appears to be justification in seeking the prayers, as there is no explanation for gross delay in initiating the proceeding which otherwise also cannot be initiated on account of various factors like non availability of the evidences etc. Direct service today, is permitted.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 2 of 2