The Gujarat High Court stated that issuing a charge-sheet at the end of service shows bad intent, and it ordered the officer to pay a cost of Rs 10,000.
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that issuing a charge-sheet late in a government official’s service suggests bad intentions. The court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the officer who charged a government employee for not getting a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) during passport renewal. This decision came after an appeal against a previous ruling that dismissed the original petition challenging the charge-sheet. The judges, Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi, noted that the timing of the charge-sheet raised concerns about its motives.
The appellant, a Director of Accountants and Treasury (Class-I), was set to retire on September 30, 2022. He received a charge-sheet on May 24, 2021, with three allegations. The first charge, related to obtaining a passport in 2003 without an NOC, was dropped after it was confirmed that he had the necessary approval from the State Government. The second charge involved renewing his passport in 2013 without an NOC, while the third charge concerned foreign trips to Australia and Nepal without notifying the State Government. The first and third charges were dismissed, but the second charge remained, accusing him of misconduct for the passport renewal in 2013.
Vyas argued that according to Rule 3(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, charge No. 2 does not qualify as misconduct. He pointed out that the appellant renewed her passport in 2013, and a charge-sheet was issued just before her retirement. He claimed that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet warranted its dismissal. The Bench noted that the charge-sheet did not address the delay, and the affidavit did not explain why the charge was brought up so late, especially regarding the NOC for the passport renewal. The Bench concluded that charge No. 2 should be dismissed based on this delay.
The Bench further clarified that Rule 3(1) outlines three key principles for government servants: (i) complete integrity, (ii) commitment to duty, and (iii) avoiding actions that are inappropriate for a government servant. They stated that while the appellant had obtained an NOC when she first got her passport, she did not do so during the renewal. However, this omission does not indicate a lack of integrity or commitment to duty. The Bench characterized her action as a minor lapse, not serious enough to be considered unbecoming of a government servant. They emphasized that her conduct was neither grossly negligent nor did it lead to significant harm to the government.
The respondent relied on a memorandum from the Government of India dated October 5, 2009, which stated in paragraph 3(d) that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is needed for government employees to renew their passports after expiration or visa exhaustion, but no police verification is necessary at that time. The Bench noted that if the appellant had been aware of these instructions, she would have obtained the NOC when she first applied for her passport in 2003. The Bench remarked that the appellant’s failure to follow the instructions in paragraph 3(d) could not be considered misconduct unless she had been informed that ignoring these rules would lead to disciplinary action.
Additionally, the appellant claimed in her writ petition that Officer Umesh M Oza, who issued the charge sheet, held a personal grudge against her due to previous complaints she had made against him when he was a Deputy Director. The Bench pointed out that according to Rule 24 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the government can only withhold or withdraw a pension if the pensioner is found guilty of serious misconduct or negligence during their service. The Bench concluded that Charge No. 2 in the charge sheet did not meet the criteria for “serious misconduct or negligence.”
The Bench also noted that the officer’s charge sheet, which referenced old issues, seemed to threaten the appellant’s retirement benefits by prolonging departmental proceedings after her retirement. Therefore, the Bench dismissed the second charge and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the officer for issuing the charge sheet, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Cause Title: Charu Narendrabhai Bhatt vs The State of Gujarat [Case No.- C/LPA/540/2024]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Vaibhav A Vyas
Respondent: Advocate Sahil B. Trivedi
