1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities of initiating the departmental inquiry against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 19.11.2010.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on compassionate ground after the death of her husband. viz., Pravinbhai D. Patel. The petitioner was posted in the District Treasury Office, Himmatnagar in 2002 and transferred to Gandhinagar in the office of the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Gujarat State and since then she has been working as such in the said office. After the death of her husband she was granted family pension which was stopped by the authorities from August 2002. In the year 2002 the petitioner made an application for grant of maternity leave, which was sanctioned by the authorities for the period from 11.11.2002 to 25.03.2003 and on 12.12.2002 she gave birth to a child (boy). In the year 2004, the authorities had sought certain information from the petitioner in respect of details of her family, nomination form, her remarriage etc, which the petitioner had submitted to the authorities at the relevant point of time. Petitioner was, vide communication dated 11.01.2005 asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 31904/- received by her towards family pension between the period from 13.12.2001 to 30.08.2002, on the basis of her marriage and birth of her son in 2002. Explanation was tendered.
2.1 According to the petitioner, she got remarried on 08.01.2006 with one Hemant Raval. On 20.01.2006, on the basis of allegations made by one Gauriben Joshi in her complaint, sought explanation of the petitioner about remarriage of petitioner, which was responded by petitioner vide reply dated 23.01.2006. Preliminary inquiry was held against petitioner in that regard and report was submitted by the inquiry officer to the effect that it is a personal matter of the petitioner and nothing is required to be done. On 19.11.2010, the authorities have issued charge sheet for the charge that petitioner gave birth to a child on 12.12.2002 without getting remarried. On 15.12.2010 the petitioner had submitted her detailed defense statement. On 17.09.2011 after eight months of submission of defense statement, inquiry officer was appointed for holding inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the charge sheet. Accordingly, departmental inquiry is initiated against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the proceedings are initiated after 8 years and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. She placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case State of Andhra Pradesh V. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 wherein the departmental proceedings were quashed on the ground of unexplained delay. Learned Advocate submitted that in the present case the proceedings were initiated almost after 8 years alleging that the petitioner has committed gross misconduct and act of moral turpitude by giving birth to a child on 12.12.2002 without getting remarried and has thereby committed breach of Gujarat Civil Services ( Conduct) Rules and therefore, the departmental inquiry is required to be quashed and set aside. She has also relied upon a decision in the case of P.V. Mahadevan V. MD. T.N. Housing Board, reported in (2005)6 SCC 636.
4.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that divorce was given by her husband in the year 2005 to Gauriben against which appeal has been preferred by Gauriben and it is pending before the appellate authority. The appeal which was sought to be pending is not served to the husband of the petitioner.
5.0 Mr.
Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader has resisted the petition and submitted that there is a strong case against the petitioner, her act amounted to unbecoming of a government servant and therefore inquiry proceedings are initiated and this Court may not interfere in the same. Affidavit in reply has been filed wherein in paras 9 and 10 it is held as under:
"9.
I say and submit that the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a Government servant as per Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Service ( Conduct) Rules, 1971 as under:
General :
(1) Every Government servant shall at all times-
(I) maintain absolute integrity.
(ii) maintain devotion to duty, and
(iii) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
Explanation-
A Government servant, who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of clause (ii).
I further say that, as alleged by Exh-wife of Hemant Rawal, the petitioner knowingly entered into illicit relation with Mr. Hemant Raval though he was married and due to this misconduct chargesheet dated 19.11.2010 was issued to the petitioner. I state that the petitioner has submitted her detailed defence statement on 15.12.2010 and the ground regarding her engagement was never mentioned before the authority. So, it is understood that due to her illicit relation with Hemant Raval, she gave birth to a male child without entering into remarriage. In above mentioned circumstance the chargesheet regarding her misconduct was issued.
10. I further say that in case of Prabahtsinh Samtsinh v/s District superintendent of Police and Anr. Reported in 2009(3) GLR 2499, this Hon'ble Court held that the concept of "unbecoming of Government servant" is sufficiently wide so as to cover verity of action of an employee. It is also held that contention of an employee that his private life has no connection with the discharge of official duty is not acceptable and in the above mentioned judgement the Hon'ble Court elaborately discussed the work "unbecoming of Government servant".
From the above facts certain aspects are not in dispute. The petitioner's husband had died prior to 2002 and she was appointed on compassionate ground. In the month of December 2002 she gave birth to a boy. At that time she was not remarried. She got married to Mr.Hemant Raval in the year 2006. Thus, she delivered the boy without marriage. Such an act is not permissible under Hindu Marriage Act. It is also an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. However, at this stage only departmental proceedings are initiated. Looking to the facts of the case it cannot be said that the departmental proceedings are initiated without any basis. The petitioner is not in a position to point out anything from the record to show that a baseless allegation is made against her and there is no ground for departmental proceedings. The delay alleged in the present case is of 8 months, whereas in the aforesaid decisions the delay is enormous and unexplained. Therefore the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present case.
7.0 A contention has been raised that divorce was given by her husband in the year 2005 to Gauriben against which appeal has been preferred by Gauriben and it is pending before the appellate authority. However, the issue in the present matter is whether the petitioner got married when she delivered the child or not. Whether the husband of the petitioner got divorce at the relevant time is immaterial to the controversy involved in the present case.
8.0 In any case, if at all the outcome of the departmental proceedings is against the petitioner, it will be open to her to challenge the same.
9.0 In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the present case. The same is therefore dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top