SHANKAR GANGARAM KHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition reflects a very sorry state of affairs regarding the conduct of a departmental inquiry by the 1st respondent/state. I am constrained to say this because the alleged fraud an/or misappropriation related to the sale of postal stamps in the General Stamp Office, at Bombay, and the amount involved was as much as Rs. 66,000/ -. The further disturbing factor is that the alleged fraud was committed between April and September 1969. By the present petition, the petitioner Shankar Gangaram Khade is challenging the memorandum and the charge framed against him on 1st February, 1988, being Memorandum No. 10411/esst in the following facts and circumstances:---

(2.) IT appears that there was a fraud in the General Stamp Office, Bombay, of the nature indicated above and some inquiry was held towards the end of 1969 and/or in the beginning of 1970 by responsible Government Officers. However, all that transpired in the said inquiry was that everything was in order. Later on, however, Special Case No. 19 of 1973 was tired before the learned Special Judge, Bombay, against 4 accused viz. Deshpande - Accused No. 1, Dalvi - Accused No. 2, Gadkar - Accused No. 3 and Koparkar-Accused No. 4. The offences with which these 4 accused were charged were punishable under section 120-B I. P. C. , section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 34 of the I. P. C. By his judgment and order dated 19th March, 1976, the Special Judge, Bombay, acquitted accused No. 1 - Deshpande and also accused No. 4 - Koparkar. Accused No. 2, Dalvi, and accused No. 3, Gadkar, were, however, convicted of the charges and were each sentenced to suffer R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R. I. for one year. Against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No. 2 and accused No. 3. two Criminal Appeals were preferred. Accused No. 2, Dalvi, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1976 and accused No. 3, Gadkar, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1976. Both the Appeals were disposed of by a common judgement and order passed by this Court on 22nd July, 1981. This Court came to the conclusion that the conviction of accused No. 2 was based on the evidence of witnesses, whose evidence suggested that they were themselves accomplices. One such witnesses in the Special Case was the present petitioner, Khade. The other two witnesses were Stamp Vendor - G. S. Chaudhari and Asst. Cashier - R. A. Deshmukh. In view of the matter, this Court acquitted Dalvi and his conviction and sentence was set aside. However, as far as accused No. 3, Gadkar, was concerned, though his conviction was maintained, his sentence was reduced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of which, a further R. I. for 3 months. I am told by the learned Counsel appearing on either side that Gadkar has preferred an Appeal to the Supreme Court which is pending final hearing.

(3.) AS far as the present petitioner is concerned, it appears that he was first issued a memorandum on the 8th March 1984. The said memorandum said that the Government had decided to hold a departmental inquiry against him in the matter of misappropriation of government money in the sale of service postage stamps by receiving cheque against the sale of the said stamps. Alongwith this memorandum, which is at Exh. "b" to the petition, a statement of misconduct or misbehaviour was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply as far back as on 16th August 1984, which is at Exh. "c" to the petition. The petitioner had taken several contentions regarding the nature of his duties in the General Stamp Office and his rule in the sale of the said stamps. However, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the petitioners reply to the said memorandum and the charges against him. It is not possible to say from the pleadings before me as to what exactly happened after the petitioner submitted his reply on 16th August, 1984. Admittedly, no progress was made in the said departmental inquiry till the petitioner retired on 30th April, 1986. No report was ever made to any superior officer regarding the delay in the conduct of the said inquiry and, admittedly, no extension of period to complete the said 1984 inquiry was ever obtained till the petitioner retired on 30th April, 1986 or even thereafter.