NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19552 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
RAJIBEN KALIDAS SANMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 31/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.A.Jadeja on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent - State. Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order dated 20.03.2001 dismissing the present petitioner from service more particularly confirmed in appeal vide order dated 10.04.2002 and further confirmed in revision/review vide order dated 06.07.2006.
3. Short facts leading to filing of the petition are being narrated herein below:-
3.1. The original petitioner was appointed as an Unarmed Woman Constable on 04.12.1969 and whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable and thereafter to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. 3.2. It would appear that a charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner on 09.06.1993 inter alia alleging that the petitioner had got some news published in a local newspaper and whereas, it was alleged that the petitioner had misconducted herself. It appears that an inquiry officer had been appointed to inquire into the charges and whereas the inquiry officer had exonerated the present petitioner from the charges leveled against her.
Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined 3.3. It would appear that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.06.1995 inter alia coming to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved based on the issues of disagreement and whereas, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon the petitioner. It would appear that the petitioner having represented against the same, the same did not find favour with the disciplinary authority and ultimately vide order dated 20.03.2001, the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of dismissal from service upon the present petitioner.
3.4. The petitioner had challenged the same by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority being the Inspector General of Police and whereas, vide an order dated 10.04.2002, the Inspector General of Police had rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
3.5. It would appear that against the order passed in appeal, the original petitioner had preferred a revision application Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined before the Director General of Police and whereas, vide order dated 08.07.2005, the Director General of Police had rejected the revision application preferred by the present petitioner. It would appear that the said decision of Director General of Police had been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 06.07.2006 and whereas, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority have been challenged by the petitioner by preferring this petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.A.Jadeja on behalf of the petitioner who would contend that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and whereas, learned advocate would submit in this regard that the inquiry officer having exonerated the present petitioner, thereafter the disciplinary authority had issued show cause notice to the present petitioner.
4.1. Learned advocate would submit that a perusal of the show cause notice would reveal that the disciplinary authority, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, had disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and whereas Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined based upon such disagreement, the disciplinary authority had proposed to issue punishment of dismissal upon the present petitioner.
4.2. Learned advocate would submit that the disciplinary authority before confirming the disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer was required to afford an opportunity to the present petitioner and whereas, the same not being granted, a valuable right to the present petitioner has been violated and whereas in that regard, learned advocate would rely upon decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jiteshkumar Vallabhdas Chotai vs. PDJ and Disciplinary Authority and , reported in (2017) 4 GLR 3585.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja would further submit that along with violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order also deserves to be interfered with on account of the same being highly disproportionate to the allegations leveled even if they are assumed to be proved. Learned advocate would submit that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that a news article had appeared in a local newspaper more particularly whereby an Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined issue with regard to quarter of the present petitioner had been published and whereas, according to learned advocate, even if the said charge i.e. of the said news article having been published at the behest of the petitioner is assumed to be true without admitting, then also the charge was not so serious to have attracted punishment from dismissal of service. Thus submitting, learned advocate would request this Court to quash and set aside the orders of punishment and to direct the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner all retiral dues.
5. As against the same, this petition is vehemently objected to by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent - State.
5.1. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi would submit that challenge to the findings in disciplinary proceedings would be under a very narrow compass and whereas, learned AGP would submit that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenge to such findings may not entitle this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to reappreciate the evidence.
Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined 5.2. Learned AGP would further submit that in the instant case, the principles of natural justice have not been violated more particularly the petitioner having been granted adequate opportunity at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet to defend herself and therefore, at the stage of second show cause notice to submit as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon the petitioner. Learned AGP would submit that the principles of natural justice does not appear to have been violated in any way whatsoever and whereas learned AGP would therefore submit that this Court may not interfere in the order of punishment. 5.3. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi would, at this stage, also draw the attention of this Court to the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, more particularly, Rule 10 thereof and would submit that after the inquiry report is submitted by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority is empowered to disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer and while reasons for disagreement is to be recorded and whereas, the rules do not envisage that the delinquent is to be given any opportunity.
5.4. Having regard to such submissions, learned AGP would Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined request this Court not to interfere in the impugned order. Learned AGP would further rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and Ors. vs. P.Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 in support of his submissions. Learned AGP would further submit that in case, this Court were to decide that there has been an infraction in any of the procedural rules and that the same would result in the order of the punishment being set aside, then also, this Court may relegate the petitioners to the disciplinary authority for continuing the disciplinary proceedings from the stage the infraction in the procedure is noted. 5.5. Learned AGP would further rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Y.S.Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30 and decision in case of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P.Education Society and Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 in support of his submissions.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.1. While it is true that the interference of this Court in Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings would not enable this Court to sit as an appellate authority and to reappreciate evidence and whereas, the aspects on which interference in disciplinary proceedings could be done, has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P.Gunshekharan (supra) as relied upon by learned AGP. Paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the said judgment being relevant for the present purpose are being reproduced for benefit:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law.
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can he based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
6.2. Keeping the above principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court would now examine whether the punishment is required to be interfered with or not. It Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined would appear upon perusal of the record that after the inquiry officer had exonerated the present petitioner from the charges leveled against her, the disciplinary authority had issued a second show cause notice. Upon perusal of the second show cause notice, it would appear as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has forwarded the conclusion on disagreement to the inquiry officer's report without calling upon the petitioner to show cause or submit as to why certain issues or certain conclusions of the inquiry officer should not be disagreed upon by the disciplinary authority. It would further appear that the disciplinary authority had based upon the final conclusions of disagreement had proposed to impose punishment of dismissal from service and whereas, the second show cause notice is merely calling upon the employee to show cause as to why the punishment proposed by the disciplinary authority should not be imposed upon the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the disciplinary authority not affording an opportunity to the delinquent to raise her defence against the proposed issues of disagreement before the disciplinary authority finally disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer, would be a Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined clear breach of principles of natural justice.
7. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that departmental inquiries for employees of the State is governed by the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. Rule 10 of the Rules states regarding the action to be taken by the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report. Rule 10(2) of the Rules being relevant for the resent issue, as relied upon by the learned AGP, is reproduced herein below for benefit:-
"Rule-10(2):- The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose"
7.1. It would appear that Rule 10(2) of the Rules had been interpreted by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jiteshkumar Vallabhdas Chotai (supra) replied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Paragraph nos. 6, 6.1, 6.2 and 9 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit:-
"6. Rule 10(2) of the Rules contemplate giving of reasons in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry report exonerating the delinquent-employee. The requirement of giving Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined reasons would indicate that when certain reasons have weighed with the disciplinary authority, the delinquent must be put to notice of those reasons. Keeping the delinquent-employee in dark about the reasons of disagreement but communicating to him that the disciplinary authority had proposed to inflict penalty by not accepting the findings of the inquiry report, would undoubtedly amount to denial of reasonable opportunity.
6.1 Unless the delinquent is made aware as to what reasons and which considerations weighed with the disciplinary authority to take a differing view, the delinquent would be deprived of raising his defence in the context of the findings of inquiry report which had exonerated him, in general and would be further denied the opportunity to properly put-forth his case about the proposed penalty in particular. Opportunity to reply to and explain the reasons of disagreement, and an opportunity in respect of proposed penalty constitute two different sets of opportunities and cannot be combined into a one notice. They are the two stages of defence to be made available to the delinquent in law.
6.2 When a disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings in the inquiry report that the charge was not proved, wanting to come to a contrary conclusion for its own reasons, at that stage, the delinquent becomes entitled to a fresh opportunity to show cause in respect of the reasons which the disciplinary authority has been holding for itself to treat the delinquent guilty. A renewed procedure of communicating the tentative reasons of disagreement, consideration of the defence of the petitioner, weighing and comparing the reasons recorded by the inquiry officer vis-a-vis the petitioner's case as well as the view of the disciplinary authority and thereafter if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, to proceed with a notice with regard to the proposed penalty, becomes imperative so as to meet with the natural justice. It Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined could be said that another and separate stage arrives in the departmental inquiry proceedings when the disciplinary authority differs with the findings of the inquiry officer and the conclusion of exonerating the delinquent. The principles of natural justice therefore assumes significance with an added emphasis to make the opportunity to petitioner to defend his case, reasonable, adequate and effective.
9. Summing up, not giving a show cause notice by Disciplinary Authority when it opted to disagree with the findings of inquiry officer wanting to take a view that the charges against the petitioner were proved, was such kind of breach of natural justice which by itself lead to a prejudice to the pettioner. It was obligatory in law for the disciplinary authority to supply the tentative reasoning of disagreement asking the petitioner to show cause thereon, thereby, giving a due and reasonable opportunity of defence and purge the prejudice caused to the petitioner. It was only after considering the reply of the petitioner- delinquent that the Disciplinary Authority could have decided in respect of the penalty. Non-issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority in respect of the tentative findings recorded by him against the inquiry report, was vitiative to the inquiry as well as the ultimate penalty imposed on the petitioner, and it is from the said stage that the inquiry stood vitiated." 7.2. Considering the law laid down by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, it would appear that while the disciplinary authority is empowered to disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer, yet, the disciplinary authority is under an obligation, more particularly in tune with the principles of natural justice, to supply the tentative reasoning of disagreement asking the delinquent to show cause as to Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined why the disciplinary authority should not disagree with the inquiry officer. It is only after the reply of the delinquent is considered by the disciplinary authority, that the disciplinary authority could have decided in respect of penalty. It would appear that the learned Coordinate Bench has clearly noted that non-issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority in respect of tentative findings would vitiate the inquiry as well as the ultimate order of penalty issued by the respondent authorities.
7.3. It would further appear that in a later decision in case of Gaurav Jerambha Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [Special Civil Application No.14631/2021, Dt. 13.12.2021] considering a similar issue, after relying upon the law laid down by the learned Coordinate Bench as referred to herein above, this Court had held as follows at paragraph nos.23 and 24:-
"23. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court, the delinquent in a departmental proceedings is entitled to be given a copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer before a finding of guilt is arrived at. This would be in consonance with the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity as envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined
24. In view of the above discussion, to ensure that the delinquent is afforded a reasonable opportunity in a departmental proceedings, more particularly when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the requirement of giving a copy of such report of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority to the delinquent is required to be read into Rule 10(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 2002."
8. From the above observations, it would appear that this Court has gone further and also observed that in addition to issuing a tentative notice for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, after the delinquent replies to the same and the disciplinary authority reaches a conclusion to disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer, then before issuance of show cause notice or along with issuance of show cause notice, the disciplinary authority is required to give a final copy of the disagreement to the delinquent in question. 8.1. It would appear that both the requirements i.e. giving tentative notice of disagreement as well as giving final conclusion of disagreement appears to have been breached in the instant case.
9. At this stage, it also requires to be mentioned that while the inquiry officer has, after a detailed inquiry, come to a Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined conclusion that the charges leveled against the present petitioner are not proved, the disciplinary authority merely on the basis of conjunctures and surmises has come to a conclusion that the charge leveled against the present petitioner stand proved. It would be apposite to mention here that while there was no material whatsoever to show that the article had been published in the local newspaper at the behest of the present petitioner, the disciplinary authority had considered the statement of a reporter of the newspaper in question who had inter alia stated that only if a communication is issued by the person in question, a press note with names would be printed by the newspaper and whereas since three months are over as per the policy of the newspaper, the written communications are destroyed. Based on the said testimony only on the basis of inference the disciplinary authority has come to a conclusion that since the reporter has said that the articles of news with name are only published upon such letter being issued by the person concerned, therefore, it has to be assumed that the article had appeared at the behest of the petitioner herself. It would be clear that while there was no material whatsoever to indicate that the news article had been published at the behest of the Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined original petitioner, yet, on the basis of assumption, the disciplinary authority had held the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thus, it would clearly appear that the disagreement is clearly tainted by the vice of 'no evidence'. 9.1. Furthermore, it would also appear that the disciplinary authority had shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner more particularly by coming to a conclusion that the petitioner had committed the misconduct in question more particularly since after the article had been published, the petitioner at the relevant point of time had not intimated to the newspaper as regards the article being false. Thus, in absence of any cogent material, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the report of the inquiry officer and held the petitioner guilty on the basis of adverse inference. 9.2. Be that as it may, this Court seeks to rely upon paragraph nos. 12(c), 12(d), 12(e), 12(f) and 12(i) of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P.Gunasekaran (supra) which has been quoted herein above more particularly since it appears that there is a violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings as noted herein above and the conclusion on the face of it is wholly arbitrary Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined and capricious and based on no evidence and adverse inference also as noted herein above.
9.3. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order as well as the order passed in appeal and review being wholly unsustainable more particularly for the reasons stated herein above, are required to be interfered with.
10. Insofar as the submissions made by learned Government Pleader that the petitioner may be relegated and the disciplinary proceedings should be permitted to continue from the stage a breach of principles of natural justice is noted, more particularly as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, while the said principle is the Rule, there are certain exceptions to the Rule and whereas in the facts of this case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the exception to the Rule would have to be followed.
10.1. The reasons for not remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority being that the order of penalty had been imposed upon the present petitioner as far as back in the year Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined 2001 i.e. approximately 22 years earlier. It would appear that the present petitioner while she had been dismissed in the year 2001, had completed her age of superannuation if she had remain in service in the year 2007. It would also appear that the original petitioner had unfortunately expired on 17.12.2018. In this view of the matter, since the order itself is almost more than 2 decades old and since the petitioner herself had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, in the considered opinion of this Court, relegating the matter back to the disciplinary authority would be nothing but an exercise in futility more particularly since the legal heirs of the petitioner would not be able to mount any defence on account of demise of the original petitioner herself. 10.2. Having regard to such a situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, the request made by learned AGP cannot be countenanced.
11. In view of the above discussion, observations and findings, the following directions are passed:-
(i) The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 20.03.2001 dismissing the present petitioner, as Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.04.2002 and has confirmed by the revisional authority vide order dated 08.07.2005, is hereby quash and set aside.
(ii) Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the present petitioner as being in service as if the impugned orders referred to herein above had not been passed at all.
(iii) The respondents are further directed to pay to the legal heirs of the present petitioner all the retiral benefits as would have been available to the petitioner if she had been in service till the date of her superannuation.
(iv) The retiral benefits shall include the gratuity and all other benefits including the benefit of arrears of pension etc. and whereas, the arrears shall be paid by the respondent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order with interest at the rate of 6% from the date it fell due till the date of payment.
(v) It is further clarified that the period between the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation shall be treated as notional and whereas the legal heirs of the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the said period. Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/19552/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2023 undefined
12. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 03:03:04 IST 2023