1. At the outset, it is necessary, relevant and appropriate to clarify that present order and/or previous order dated 08.09.2011, do not deal with and are not to be construed as orders dealing, the propriety and/or adequacy or otherwise, of the quantum of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and/or as orders approving the departmental proceedings and/or orders approving the decision of the disciplinary authority, in any manner whatsoever. It is also clarified that present order is passed in view of the request made by the applicant, in present application, to the effect that:
"(a) Be pleased to admit the present Miscellaneous Civil Application.
(b) Be pleased to allow the present Miscellaneous Civil Application by way of passing appropriate order directing the Registry of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to accept the Compliance Report dated 09.12.2011 in the interest of justice."
2. In support of the aforesaid relief, the applicant has, inter alia, stated that:
"2. The applicant most respectfully submits that as the time limit was fast expiring, it was thought fit to prefer O.J.Misc. Civil Application NO.249 of 2010 for extension of time limit and the Hon'ble Court was kind enough to pass an order on 29.12.2010 extending the time limit up to 30.06.2011 and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B.
3. The applicant most respectfully submits that as mentioned hereinabove, the confidential report was submitted by the Committee on 13.12.2010 and on study of the same it was found that necessary proceedings were required to be initiated against Mr. S.J.Shah (retired General Manager) and Dy.General Manager Mr.P.L.Kotwal and hence a detailed note was put up for appropriate decision and ultimately both of them were issued charge sheet on 01.01.2011.
4. The applicant most respectfully states that accordingly charge sheets were issued against Mr.P.L.Kotwal and Mr. S.J.Shah, retired General Manager and a fulfledged departmental inquiry was held against them. It is submitted that as the time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Court was expiring, O.J.Misc. Civil Application No.97 of 2011 for extension of time was filed and the same was granted by the Hon'ble Court and a copy thereof is annexed as Annexure-C.
5. The applicant most respectfully submits that the extended time limit was up to 30.9.2011 but some delay was caused in issuing the punishment order against Mr.S.J.Shah and it was passed on 25.10.2011. While Mr. P.L.Kotwal was exonerated. It is submitted that Mr. S.J.Shah has submitted a representation through a letter dated 11.11.2011 against the penal order.
6. The applicant submits that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court a Compliance Report dated 9.12.2011 was prepared and entrusted to advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for Gujarat State Financial Corporation to place it on the record of the Registry. The same was furnished along with a letter dated 21.12.2011 duly addressed to the Registrar, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad but the office has refused to accept the same on the ground that the time limit has expired."
3. After considering the said submissions in para 2 to 6 of the application, order dated 16.01.2012 was passed wherein the applicant was directed that:
"3.
It is not declared or clarified by the applicant as to when the Inquiry Officer declared inquiry proceedings as "concluded". It is also not declared and clarified as to when the Inquiry Officer submitted his finding / report. The applicant has also not declared the date on which the second show cause notice suggesting proposed penalty was issued. All that is mentioned is the date on which the disciplinary authority passed the final order imposing penalty. The said date, as mentioned in the application is 25.10.2011, which is beyond the last date mentioned in the order dated 8.9.2011. Furthermore, action taken report was sought to be submitted in the registry on 21.12.2011. However, since apparently it was not within the time limit prescribed in the order dated 8.9.2011, the registry did not accept it. Hence this application."
4. In pursuance of and in compliance of the said order dated 16.01.2012 one Mr.N.B.Suma, Deputy Manager, HRD has filed an additional affidavit dated 20.01.2012, wherein, it is inter alia, stated that:
"1. The deponent most respectfully states that the Departmental Inquiry Officer concluded the departmental inquiry on 12.09.2011 and submitted his report on 26.09.2011 to the Human Resources Department of Gujarat State Financial Corporation. It is stated that immediately the report was carefully studied and placed before the disciplinary authority i.e. the Managing Director of the Corporation with a noting on 28.09.2011.
2. The deponent states that as the Managing Director of the Corporation was at New Delhi for attending the meeting, he could be contacted on telephone only at 6:00 p.m. on 29.09.2011 and he immediately instructed to issue a final show cause notice to Mr.S.J.Shah and accordingly it was issued on 30.09.2011. It is submitted that as the Senior Officer of Human Resources Department of the Corporation was empowered by the Managing Director, the said notice was issued and served upon Mr.S.J.Shah at his residence, Vadodara through a special messenger on 30.09.2011. It is submitted that the Managing Director of the Corporation returned from New Delhi by evening on 30.09.2011 and immediately on 01.10.2011 another final show cause notice duly signed by him was sent to Mr. S.J.Shah through Registered A.D.Post.
3. The deponent humbly submits that as such Mr. Shah who was served upon the final show cause notice on 30.09.2011, was required to submit his reply on or before 07.10.2011, but he submitted his reply dated 10.10.2011 in person on 11.102.2011. It is required to be noted that 8th & 9th October, 2011 were public holidays.
4. The deponent humbly submits that as the Managing Director was on training in United Kingdom between 07.10.2011 to 19.10.2011, it was not possible to take any decision qua the penalty, but immediately on his return the file was placed before him and after completing the necessary administrative formalities between 21.10.2011 to 24.10.2011 by the Human Resources Department, a penal order dated 25.10.2011 is passed and it was sent to Mr.S.J.Shah through Registered A.D.Post."
5. Thus, what emerges from the details mentioned in the application and the above mentioned additional affidavit is that the stage of recording evidence and hearing the submissions by the delinquent officer and the department/establishment was concluded by the Inquiry Officer only on 12th September 2011 and thereafter, upon considering the material on record the Inquiry Officer is said to have filed his report before the disciplinary authority as late as on 26th September 2011. Vide previous order dated 8th September 2011, as a last chance, the department was granted extension of time until 30th September 2011 to complete the proceedings. Therefore, on the ground that the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 26th September 2011, the applicant has tried to contend that the proceedings were concluded within the time extended/granted by the Court.
6. It also emerges from the record that the direction by the Disciplinary Authority to issue second show-cause notice about proposed penalty was passed on 29th September 2011 and accordingly the second show-cause notice about proposed penalty was issued on 30th September 2011. The delinquent was granted time until 7th October 2011 to submit his reply/explanation in response to the said second show-cause notice. However, the delinquent submitted the reply on 11th October 2011. It is claimed that the Disciplinary Authority was on training from 7th October 2011 and therefore upon his return on 19th October 2011, the other administrative formalities were completed between 21st October 2011 to 24th October 2011 and the penalty oder was passed on 25th October 2011. The applicant Corporation, thereafter, requested the advocate to file appropriate application in the Registry and to place on record the details and conclusion of the proceedings, on 3rd November 2011 and subsequently present application came to be filed.
7. The delay caused after 30th September 2011 was noticed by the Registry and that therefore the Compliance Report was not accepted. Hence, present application.
8. The applicant has tried to contend that there is no delay at all since the I.O. Had completed the inquiry on 26.09.2011 and second show cause notice was issued on 29.09.2011. It is alternatively claimed that the delay is of only 25 days inasmuch as the penalty order was passed on 25.10.2011. However, the said submissions are like half or partially backed dish. This would become clear on taking into account the original direction and time frame fixed vide the first (original order dated 23.09.2010 after which one extension was granted under order dated 29.12.2010 and second extension was granted under order dated 06.09.2011. In the order dated 23.09.2010, the Court observed and directed that, "Necessary actions are required to be taken against all these persons. Within three months from today, necessary actions should be taken and the report of their inquiry and the action taken against them should be filed with the Registry of this Court." The originally fixed time limit expired on 23.12.2010. What the authorities were required to complete within prescribed time is "necessary actions" and "report of action taken was to be filed". Both i.e. the said composite actions were to be completed on or before the last date i.e. 22.09.2010. In present case action was taken after delay of 25 days and report was filed on 21.12.2011, not considering the two intervening extensions granted vide orders dated 29.12.2010 and 06.09.2011. Thus, even if the delay until 30.09.2011 (in view of original order is not considered) is not considered then also the delay which is caused is of 2 months and 21 days I.e. 82 days since the action of submission of report was also to be completed within prescribed time. Hence, the submissions and the so-called explanation are neither palatable and convincing nor acceptable and sustainable.
9. If any delay were to be attributed to the Delinquent Officer then it would be of only 2 days, inasmuch as he was asked to submit his reply on 7th October 2011, however he filed his reply on 11th October 2011. In this context, it is also necessary to note that out of the said four days, two days' delay occurred in view of the fact that 8th October 2011 and 9th October 2011 were public holidays.
10. Except the fact that the report of the Inquiry Officer was received on 26th September 2011, any explanation with regard to the delay caused in complying the directions has not been explained satisfactorily. The Disciplinary Authority seems to be attributing the delay in passing the final order to the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report only on 26th September 2011.
11. Having regard to the above mentioned facts, the explanation and reasons stated by the Disciplinary Authority for clarifying the cause for delay, are not satisfactory. Despite two extensions, the directions have not been complied within even extended time limit. The Court may, at this stage not initiate any contempt proceedings considering that ultimately, though after delay, "some" final action is taken, but, at the same time, it is also not considered appropriate to not to make any order against the Corporation and the Disciplinary Authority for the non-compliance of and for default and delay in complying the directions within time limit. It is considered appropriate that the delay should be visited with appropriate order i.e. direction requiring the Corporation and Disciplinary Authority to pay Rs.7,500/-. The amount shall be paid in the Registry on or before 31st January 2012. The office will accept the final report/compliance report only if it is accompanied by the aforesaid payment. The amount then shall be credited to the account of Legal Aid Committee.
12. With aforesaid clarification, the application is disposed of. The copy of the report will be made available to the learned Advocate by 24th January 2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top