Ahmedabad: Twenty-five years and an HC order later, a former Class I officer has got a clean chit in a departmental proceeding, after the CM’s signature exonerating the officer earlier had been blotted out deliberately by babus.The CM’s signature from a file noting had been obscured by whitener.When it quashed the punishment for the officer, the HC expressed concern over the futility of the police investigation into tampering with the CM’s file noting. The CID crime, which probed the case, could not find any culprit.This case involved F H Shaikh, an assistant director in the directorate of employment and training, who was facing a departmental proceeding along with three other officers over the purchase of goods since 1990.The inquiry officer exonerated him, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and ordered the stoppage of one increment with effect from 1998.Shaikh’s review appeal was rejected by the department in 2000. Upon his request for reconsideration, his file was placed before the highest authority. In Aug 2001, the then minister concerned and the chief minister both opined that the inquiry officer’s report should be accepted, and Shaikh exonerated.Yet, the labour department did not pass any formal order to this effect. The CM’s decision remained in the file, and it was never communicated to the petitioner.The proceeding against Shaikh remained pending, and when it was reopened, it was found that records had been tampered with and certain words, including the CM’s signature, had been obliterated with whitener.The tampering was probed by the CID crime, but the matter remained inconclusive.In 2010, the department passed the order maintaining the punishment, and Shaikh petitioned the HC against this, arguing that it was a clear case of victimization.His counsel contended that once the minister and the CM took a decision, it was not open to the authority to take any contrary decision. Moreover, the disciplinary authority exonerated three other members of the purchase committee, and took a different view in his case. This was a clear case of discrimination, it was argued.After perusing the records, Justice M J Shelat concluded, “The file noting reveals that whitener was applied over the signature of the then chief minister.” 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.”The court 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 HC desisted from ordering so after the state govt’s request not to pass such a direction because the official concerned has already retired from service. The govt also assured the HC that it would take due care to safeguard and secure this type of file.The HC quashed the department’s 1998 notice issued to Shaikh and the 2010 penalty order, and noted the department’s failure to communicate the CM’s decision to Shaikh.The court said, “The act of the respondent concerned bolsters the argument of the petitioner that he was victimized during the entire episode of the inquiry.”
