1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus, certiorari and of prohibition and may further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to drop the charge sheets dated 26.08.2010 and 01/02/2010 on account of the same being grossly delayed and also on account of pendency of the criminal cases pending on the same set of facts and evidences.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, certiorari and of prohibition and may further be pleased to declare the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 of initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, vide charge sheets dated 26/08/2010 and 01/12/2010 as being without authority of law and further declare that no disciplinary proceedings be continued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and in turn, the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the Departmental charger sheets dated 26/08/2010 and 1/12/2010 ( Annexure A ( Colly).
(D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, certiorari and of prohibition and may further be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 by an appropriate Writ, order or orders to suspend further proceedings of the Departmental Proceedings, initiated and continued against the petitioner, as the same are without authority of law and declare the same accordingly and further declare that the departmental proceedings initiated and continued by Respondent No.3 are in gross violation of principles of nature justice, suffer from bias and consequently therefore ought to be set aside.
(DD) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, certiorari and of prohibition and may further be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner engage Shri P.D. Munshi as his defence Assistant during the course of inquiry against the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22.05.2012 of Respondent No.1.
2.0 This Court on 15.06.2012 issued notice only for the limited purpose of change of Defence Assistant.
3.0 Learned advocate for the respondent contended that as per the provision of Rule only employees who are in service can act as Defence Assistant in the departmental inquiries.
4.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that none of the persons who are working with the respondent persons is in a position to defend him and therefore, he has requested to give permission to engage a retired employee as his defence assistant.
5.0 Admission of this matter would be beneficial to the petitioner and same is prejudice to the respondent. In that view of the matter with the consensus of the parties, following order is passed:
Mr.
J M Parekh-petitioner will be allowed to avail the defence of Shri P.D. Munshi, retired Deputy Manager as his Defence Assistant in the departmental proceedings. With the above direction the petition stands disposed of. Subject to above, notice is discharged with no order as to costs. It is clarified this may not be treated as precedent in any other case.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top