Gujarat High Court Exonerates Officer After 25-Year Ordeal, Exposes File Tampering
In a landmark ruling, the Gujarat High Court has granted a clean chit to a former Class I officer, F H Shaikh, ending a 25-year-long departmental proceeding. The court uncovered shocking evidence that the signature of the then Chief Minister, which had exonerated Shaikh, was deliberately blotted out with whitener by unidentified officials.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 1990, involving F H Shaikh, an assistant director in the directorate of employment and training. He, along with three other officers, faced departmental proceedings over alleged irregularities in the purchase of goods. Initially, an inquiry officer exonerated Shaikh, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed a penalty in 1998, ordering the stoppage of one increment.
Shaikh's review appeal was rejected in 2000. However, in August 2001, upon reconsideration, the then minister and the Chief Minister both opined that the inquiry officer's report should be accepted, leading to Shaikh's exoneration. Despite this high-level decision, the labour department failed to issue any formal order, and the CM's verdict was never communicated to Shaikh.
Discovery of Tampering
When the proceeding was reopened, it was discovered that the file records had been tampered with. Key elements, including the Chief Minister's signature, were obliterated using whitener. The CID crime branch investigated the tampering but could not identify any culprits, leaving the matter inconclusive.
In 2010, the department passed an order maintaining Shaikh's punishment, prompting him to petition the High Court. He argued that this was a clear case of victimization and discrimination, especially since three other members of the purchase committee had been exonerated.
High Court's Verdict and Concerns
After perusing the records, Justice M J Shelat expressed deep concern over the vulnerability of important departmental files. The court noted, "The file noting reveals that whitener was applied over the signature of the then chief minister. This court is perturbed with the aforesaid facts, as it shows how vulnerable an important office file of the department concerned can be."
Justice Shelat added, "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 High Court refrained from ordering such an inquiry after the state government requested not to, citing that the concerned official had already retired. The government assured the court that it would take measures to safeguard such files in the future.
Court's Final Ruling
The High Court quashed the department's 1998 notice and the 2010 penalty order against Shaikh. It highlighted the department's failure to communicate the CM's decision, stating, "The act of the respondent concerned bolsters the argument of the petitioner that he was victimized during the entire episode of the inquiry."
This case underscores significant issues in bureaucratic processes and file security, raising alarms about potential manipulation within government departments.
