:
Rule. Mr. Raval, Ld.
APP waives service of rule for the respondents.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel representing both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.
3. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner requesting to quash and set aside the communication dated 15/1/2011 along with the questionnaire communicated to him by the Ld. Principal District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra.
4. Mr. MA Kharadi, Ld.
Advocate for Mr. VB Malik, Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a socio religious activist and he is doing social services in Godhra town. In the year 2008, the petitioner came to know that certain criminal cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act came to be instituted by the Godhra Town Police against certain accused persons and from the date of registration of the FIRs in those cases, within 19 days those cases came to be over and the accused came to be acquitted. Thereupon, he made applications to the concerned Ld. Principal District Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra as well as to the Ld. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner thereafter, received a communication dated 5/1/2011 whereby he was asked to remain present before the Ld. Principal District Judge, Godhra on 11/1/2011. He remained present accordingly and he was told that necessary strict actions against responsible staff members of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra shall be initiated and at-least 4 staff members shall be suspended. Mr. Kharadi, Ld. Advocate submitted that thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 15/1/2011 - Annexure - D accompanied by the questionnaire, whereby the petitioner was asked to send reply to those questions within 7 days. Mr. Kharadi submitted that in the said communication dated 15/1/2011 the petitioner was also directed not to enter the District Court premises till 31/1/2011 without first informing the Registrar, District Court, Godhra. However, Mr. Kharadi submitted that since the time limit prescribed in the said communication is already over as the time limit was upto 31/1/2011, that part of the communication is not now challenged, but it is submitted that considering 46 questions in the questionnaire annexed with the disputed communication, it can very well be said that there are many such questions which are not at all relevant to the subject matter in dispute, namely, certain questions are as to whether the petitioner has any bank account or not and whether he is indebted or not and whether he is involved in any civil or criminal litigation or not?
4.1. Mr. Kharadi, Ld.
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that at present the Ld. Principal District Judge, Godhra, who forwarded the disputed communication, is transferred and new Inquiry Officer is now posted in capacity as Judicial Officer at Godhra and, therefore, even otherwise the new Inquiry Officer shall record statement of the petitioner and in that case, it would be therefore within the sole discretion of the new Inquiry Officer to put certain questions to the petitioner during the course of his statement. Therefore, it is submitted that the incoming Judicial Officer, who is entrusted the inquiry, shall be at liberty to record the statement of the petitioner and shall not confine his questions to the disputed questionnaire and on that count also, the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Heard Mr. Raval, Ld.
APP for the respondents. Mr. Raval, upon instructions being received from the responsible staff member of the respondent no. 1 - District & Sessions Court, Godhra, submitted that at present the departmental inquiry qua certain staff members is going on and the incoming Judicial Officer who is entrusted with the inquiry, shall proceed further with the inquiry in accordance with law and rules.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the communication dated 15/1/2011 - Annexure-D, it transpires that the questionnaire is annexed with the said communication containing 46 questions and considering certain questions formulated, it can definitely be said that those questions may not have any direct relevance with the fact in dispute. As submitted, the petitioner only brought to the notice of the concerned authorities certain irregularities allegedly committed in connection with some criminal cases. As submitted on behalf of both the sides, the Ld. Principal District Judge, Godhra, who issued the communication dated 15/1/2011, has been transferred and, therefore, it can safely be said that now it would be within the domain and discretion of incoming Ld. Judicial Officer to take decision as to what type of questions which shall be required to be asked to the petitioner if at all his statement is to be recorded in connection with the departmental inquiry initiated against certain staff members of the Court. In that view of the matter and to that extent, the petition deserves to be allowed. Even otherwise, the petitioner was asked to reply those questions within 7 days from 15/1/2011 and said period is even otherwise over. However, this communication to the extent of the questionnaire annexed with the said communication deserves to be interfered with so that the incoming Inquiry Officer may proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law and rules as per his own discretion.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed and the communication dated 15/1/2011 - Annexure - D is quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Top