1. I have heard Mr. Vaishnav. Mr. Vaishnav for the petitioner has contended that the inquiry was started on the last day of the retirement of the petitioner. The charge leveled against the petitioner, was prior to 4 years, which is contrary to Section 189. He further contended that charges were not proved. The reply of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner has raised further contentions, which are reproduced as under:
"1. The second respondent Board has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate and conduct departmental proceedings agaisnt the petitioner.
=See Sec. 20 of the Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (Page 33) =See 1997(2) G.L.H. Page 177 =See paras 5 to 7 & 15 of the petitioner and (Annex.H, page 64) SCA/9589/1999 2/3 ORDER =See paras 6, 7 and 8 of the Affidavit in Reply by the Board - No Affidavit in reply is filed by the State Government, =See para 4, page 120 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder.
2. Even assuming that the Board was competent to hold enquiry against the petitioner, the Board acted in patent breach of clause (b)(i) and (ii) of Rule 189-A of the BCSRS, when it added charges on 6.9.1992 after the retirement of the petitioner, on 29.2.1992. Therefore, the charges leveled in the second charge-sheet could not have been subject matter of the departmental proceedings and the consequential order of penalty is void and of no effect whatsoever. 1st Charge-sheet (Page 38, Annex.B) in respect of a 1988 incident served on the petitioner on the date of retirement I.e. 29.2.1992.
2nd Charge-sheet (Page 42, Annex.C) dated 6.9.1992 adding number of other charges in respect of an incident of 1988. =See AIR 1995 S.C. Page 1853 =See 1976(2) S.L.R. Page 666 (D.B.) (Mewada's case).
3. Even though the charges leveled against the petitioner were not legally substantiated, they were treated to have been proved wrongly and, therefore, the order (Annexure-G) dated 16.7.1999 was liable to be quashed and set aside.
=See para 8 of the petition and Annex.EE, page 51(55) =See para 12, page 74, of the Affidavit in Reply =See para 7, page 122 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder =See para 19 and the reasons how the order was illegal SCA/9589/1999 3/3 ORDER
4. The said departmental action initiated on the last date of and subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner was initiated not in bona fide exercise of the powers as the charges were given in respect of an incident of 1988 in the year 1992 on and after his retirement. =See para 23 of the petition how the petitioner has been treated differently; =The Board has not placed on record the agenda and the minutes of the three meetings held in January, 1998/March, 1999 with regard to the penalty imposed only against the petitioner and why it acted inconsistently.
5. Even otherwise the order of penalty reducing 40% of his monthly pension for all the time to come is excessive and disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner and requires to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court.
=See para 24 of the petition; =See para 19(1) to 19(8),(20) and 24 of the petition.
=1993(2) G.L.R. Page 1278 =See para 25 of the Affidavit in reply.
2. However, with a view to enable him to produce on record the Inquiry Report, the matter is adjourned to 24.08.2012.
[K S JHAVERI, J] Ankit*