Gujarat High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed On Officer Despite Exoneration, Notes CM's Approval Was Obliterated Using Whitener

The Gujarat High Court has quashed disciplinary penalty imposed on a Class-I officer over certain alleged irregularities, after finding that despite the competent authority approving his exoneration the order was never communicated to him. The court expressed shocked after noting that the Chief Minister's signature on the file was “obliterated by using whitener,” raising serious concerns about safety of important public files and fairness of disciplinary process.Setting aside the punishment, the Justice Maulik J. Shelat said:“It is true that the decision taken by the highest officials of the State never saw the light of day, inasmuch as such decision was not communicated by the department concerned to the petitioner or otherwise. The reason for the non communication of the said decision by the department concerned at the relevant point of time was that at certain places in the department note, whitener was used to obliterate certain words in the file notings including the area where the Chief Minister had signed. The CID Crime was also involved to investigate such irregularity in the department note, but nothing fruitful came out, neither against the petitioner nor any other person, as the case may be...Prima facie, no adverse inference can be drawn at least against the petitioner for such a serious act when the decision taken as such was in his favor.”Expressing concern over use of whitener to remove the CM's signature the court said:“This Court is perturbed with the aforesaid facts, as it shows how vulnerable an important office file of the department concerned can be. It seems that anyone can manipulate the file noting as per his sweet will. This Court was seriously thinking to issue a direction to the respondent - State to hold an inquiry against the erring officials of the department concerned and, if so advised, register a criminal complaint against the officials in whose possession the file containing the said noting was kept". However the State's counsel requested the Court not to pass such a direction as the concerned official had already retired from service. At the same time, the counsel also assured the Court that its observations over the facts would be conveyed to the competent authority of the State so that henceforth due care is taken to safeguard and secure such type of file. The court was hearing a petition filed by F.H. Shaikh, a Class-I officer, challenging the penalty of stoppage of one increment imposed despite his exoneration by the Inquiry Officer.The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings in connection with alleged irregularities in purchase decisions taken by a Purchase Committee. He was first subjected to a departmental inquiry upon the issuance of a charge-sheet on August 3, 1990 which was later withdrawn more than 4 years later and a fresh chargesheet containing 16 charges was filed. After conducting a full-fledged inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, by report dated October 30, 1998, held that none of the 16 charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with these findings, and served the petitioner with a show cause notice, to which he responded. However, the respondent authority rejected the reply and imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment by order dated June 16, 1999.During the proceedings, the High Court examined the original government file and noted that the matter was placed before the Minister of the concerned department as well as the Chief Minister, who had also approved the exoneration. Yet, no formal order was passed by the department concerned and as such, their decision remained in the file as it was never communicated to the petitioner.After the high court passed certain directions, the department finally passed an order in 2010, maintaining the punishment imposed against the petitioner. Advocate Prachi Upadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the disciplinary authority had failed to record any valid reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings and had imposed punishment without issuing a final show-cause notice. She submitted that the impugned penalty order was a “non-speaking order” and violated settled principles of natural justice. She further contended that the highest authorities of the State, including the Minister concerned and the Chief Minister, had in 2001 accepted the Inquiry Officer's report and opined that the petitioner be exonerated, but no formal order was passed and communicated. This entire ordeal was orchestrated solely to victimise the petitioner. Opposing the petition, Assistant Government Pleader Siddharth Rami argued that no right accrued to the petitioner merely on the basis of internal file notings that were never formally communicated. He further submitted that the petitioner had committed misconduct and that the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty after due consideration of the material on record. He also pointed out that...

Gujarat High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed On Officer Despite Exoneration, Notes CM's Approval Was Obliterated Using Whitener

Ananya Tangri

Tags