1. Heard Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Megha Chitliya, learned AGP.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"7(A) direct the respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner and make payment of the arrears with all consequential benefits, and (B) direct the respondent authorities to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from service from 6.4.1990 to 2.9.1994 as duty period for all purposes, including for the purpose of pay and allowances and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make consequential payment of arrears to the petitioner, and (C) direct the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner on the post of Geologist (Class-I) with deemed date and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of all the consequential benefits, including the arrears of pay and allowances, and (D)......
(E).......
(F)......"
3. In view of the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Court (Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri) in Special Civil Application No.15128 of 2005 and subsequent decision of the Disciplinary Authority to restart the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry against present petitioner in light of the observations made in paragraph Nos.7.0 and 8.0 in order dated 19.3.2010 in Special Civil Application No.15128 of 2005, it is not necessary or relevant to narrate factual background of present petition.
4. This is also not necessary in view of the stipulation and declaration made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the Departmental Inquiry which the Disciplinary Authority has now decided to restart in view of this Court's order dated 19.3.2010.
5. On earlier occasion when the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 1.2.2005 against the present petitioner, imposing punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for two years on present petitioner, petitioner had preferred above mentioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.15128 of 2005. In the said petition the Court after hearing contesting parties, made below mentioned observation:-
"6.0 On the facts of the case it is found that there is non-compliance of Rule 9 (17) of the Rules. This fact is not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is also admitted that the petitioner had not examined himself during the inquiry. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Disciplinary Authority's order is therefore vitiated on this ground. It is also not in dispute that with respect to the said charges, the Inquiry officer has held that the same was not proved. It is by now well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in case, where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with respect to any charge, which is in favour of the delinquent, the Officer must state in brief the tentative reasons thereof and give opportunity by issuing notice to the delinquent before coming to a final conclusion in this regard. This was not done. Reference in this respect be made to the decisions in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. V/s. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 and in case of S.B.I. & Ors. V/s. Arvind K. Shukla reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2472. In view of the above settled legal position, in my opinion, the Disciplinary Authority's order cannot stand."
6. Having regard to the aspect mentioned in the said paragraph No.6.0 of the order dated 19.3.2010, the learned Single Judge also made observation that merely because the Disciplinary Authority's order is set aside the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be extinguished and cannot be put to an end. Therefore, the Court permitted Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with Departmental Inquiry from the stage where lapse has been detected. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.5.2011 the competent authority has nominated Mr. J.N. Patel, Senior Geologist, as the presenting officer for the purpose of said Departmental Inquiry proceedings.
7. Ms. Megha Chitliya, learned AGP has submitted that though time and again petitioner is requested to attend the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry and written intimations are sought to be served, the petitioner has avoided the service of the notice and has also not attended the proceedings. However, in view of the submission, stipulation and declaration made by learned advocate for the petitioner, the said grievance would not not survive. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that present petition can be disposed of with below mentioned observations and directions:-
(A) The petitioner shall supply, within 3 days from today his present, correct and complete address to the Departmental Head as well as the Presenting Officer, Disciplinary Authority and also to the Inquiry Officer.
(B) The Disciplinary Authority shall upon receipt of such address intimate the petitioner, in writing, the next date, venue and time for the purpose of further proceedings of the Departmental Inquiry.
(C) The petitioner, shall, thereafter, regularly attend the hearing of the Departmental Inquiry and shall be co-operate in early conclusion of the proceedings.
(D) The petitioner shall not ask for unnecessary and avoidable adjournment.
(E) The Disciplinary Authority, shall comply the observations and directions made by the Court in the order dated 19.3.2010 in Special Civil Application No.15128 of 2005 in conducting and completing Departmental Inquiry against present petitioner in accordance with the observation in the said order.
(F) The Disciplinary Authority will endeavour to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and unless the petitioner causes delay in proceedings, the inquiry officer will try to complete proceeding within period of six months from the date of hearing which will be intimated to the petitioner after present order.
(G) The petitioner herein will also not avoid the service of notice / intimation about the proceedings.
8. In view of the above mentioned clarification, direction and observation and petitioner's own stipulation that he will participate and cooperate in the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry, the learned advocate for petitioner does not press this petition at this stage and submitted that the relief prayed for in present petition may be considered.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the proceedings the relief prayed for in the petition cannot be granted at this stage.
Therefore, with the aforesaid clarification the petition is disposed of as withdrawn at this stage.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top