P.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and powers of the authority to initiate departmental enquiry against him and has prayed for setting aside the departmental proceedings on the ground that it is not open for the authority to initiate departmental enquiry after his retirement from service.
(2.) The detailed facts leading to the petition are as under :- The petitioner was recruited through the Gujarat Public Service Commission as Deputy Collector, and, ultimately, the petitioner has retired on 30.6.2000 on attaining 58 years of age. According to the petitioner, after he handed over the charge on the evening of 30th June, 2000, he was served with a charge-sheet on the same day, i.e. 30th June, 2000. A copy of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 30th June, 2000 is annexed to the petition. Seven charges are levelled against the petitioner which are as under :- (1) That during the period between 1986-'87 and 1988, the petitioner has not deducted House Rent Allowance amount and has misappropriated Government money and accordingly, has committed misconduct under the Gujarat Service Conduct Rules, 1971; (2) For the Block Year 1984-'85, he has got the benefit of Home Town Travel Allowance and though such Home Town Travel Allowance was enjoyed, he has not annexed railway receipt and accordingly, he has misappropriated Government money; (3) During the period 1986-'87, by not obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, he enjoyed Home Town Travel Allowance claiming amount of two tickets more as compared to earlier block period. (4) Withholding of one increment of his subordinate employee for which he had no power; (5) Not producing C.L. report for a period of three days when the petitioner went on leave from 16.5.1989 to 18.5.1989 and during that period, he had served as supervisor in K.P. Shah Law College without taking prior permission of the Department; (6) Enjoyed the leave for the year 1989 like compensatory leave, C.L., optional leave, etc. and his conduct was unbecoming the status of a Class I Officer; and (7) Non-maintenance of necessary register, etc. It was found out during inspection of the office of the petitioner through the District Magistrate and Civil Defence Department and accordingly, he has shown negligence as Head of the Department.
(3.) The petitioner was asked to give his defence letter within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said charge-sheet. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the said order that the petitioner is to retire on 30th June, 2000 and since the enquiry could not be concluded before his retirement, under Rule 189A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ("B.C.S.R.", for short), the enquiry will be continued after his retirement.;