Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prabhatsinh Amarsinh Makwana, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging the charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and the order dated 16.9.2013 passed by the respondent No. 1 (General Manager) deciding to hold a departmental inquiry against him for an alleged misconduct committed way back in 1996. The petitioner sought quashing of these proceedings on the ground that the initiation of inquiry after a lapse of more than 16 years was unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, bad in law, improper, mala fide, and in violation of the Service Rules of the respondent Corporation as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought interim relief restraining the respondents from holding the departmental inquiry. The court heard Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, learned advocate for Mr. Bharat Jani for the petitioner, and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents. The core legal issue was whether the inordinate delay of 16 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings for an alleged misconduct committed in 1996 was permissible under law. The court considered the submissions and found that the respondents had not provided any explanation for the delay. The court held that such inordinate delay renders the proceedings unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary, and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and the order dated 16.9.2013, and directed that the respondents shall not hold any departmental inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the alleged misconduct of 1996.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Inordinate Delay - Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged the charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and order dated 16.9.2013 for holding departmental inquiry for misconduct allegedly committed in 1996, i.e., after a lapse of more than 16 years. The court held that such inordinate delay without any explanation renders the proceedings unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The court quashed the charge sheet and the order for inquiry. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Unreasonable Delay - Service Rules of Respondent Corporation - The court considered that the delay of 16 years in initiating proceedings for misconduct committed in 1996 was not explained by the respondents. The court held that the initiation of inquiry after such a long period is arbitrary and bad in law, and accordingly set aside the impugned charge sheet and order. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the initiation of departmental inquiry after a lapse of more than 16 years for an alleged misconduct committed in 1996 is unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and the order dated 16.9.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to hold any departmental inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the alleged misconduct of 1996.
Law Points
- Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings
- Unreasonable and arbitrary action
- Violation of Articles 14 and 16
- Service Rules of respondent Corporation
