Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Nathabhai Vaghela vs Commissioner Of Police on 6 August, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SA/131/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 131 of 2021
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI NATHABHAI VAGHELA
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR. MANRAJ BAROT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for
the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 06/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Maunil Yajnik for the appellant.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manraj Barot appears upon
service of copy of the appeal memo on behalf of the respondents.
2. The challenge in this second appeal under section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against judgment and order dated
31.8.2020 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2011 by learned 5 th
Additional District Judge, Rajkot whereby the said appeal was dismissed
and the judgment and order dated 12.9.2011 of learned 3rd Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot dismissing the Regular Civil Suit no. 174 of
2002 came to be confirmed.
3. Noticing the basic facts, the appellant original plaintiff instituted
Regular Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He prayed
to declare order dated 20.7.2001 as well as the original order dated
C/SA/131/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
20.3.1999 to be illegal whereby the plaintiff was discharged from service.
The appellant plaintiff was unarmed police constable and was undergoing
training period. In respect of incident which took place on 2.6.1998 his
services were dispensed with by order dated 20.3.1999. In the plaint, it
was the case that said order dated 20.3.1999 was against principles of
natural justice and was acted upon out of bias. It was contended that
without holding any inquiry, the services were done away with. On the
various grounds pleaded in the plaint, the order of dispensing the services
and confirmation thereof came to be called in question.
3.1 In the written statement, the respondent authorities denied that
there was any breach of natural justice or that the powers were misused.
It was submitted that the period of service of the appellant in the initial
two years was the period of probation and during this period, the
competent authority was entitled to put an end to the services. It was
further contended that at the time of filling up the application form for the
post in question, in column No. 10 the details were required to be
disclosed about the criminal case pending again the candidate. It was
stated that plaintiff had been facing the First Information Report No. 319
of 1998 under sections 498A, 306, 304B and 114 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and that after the chargesheet, the applicant was discharged by the
trial court.
3.2 The Trial court proceeded to frame the issues. The issue whether
the plaintiff proved that the termination order passed by the defendant
was illegal and inoperative, came to be answered in negative. The
question as to whether the plaintiff was given opportunity of hearing
before terminating the services of the plaintiff, was answered in
affirmative. The trial court also noted condition No.12 from the
C/SA/131/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
appointment letter.
4. The trial court dismissed the suit on 12th September, 2011. The
appeal also came to be dismissed by the lower appellate court.
5. It could not be disputed that order dated 20.3.1999 discharging the
appellant plaintiff from service was during the period of probation. The
appointment of the appellant plaintiff was on 29.8.1998 and the discharge
order was dated 20.3.1999. The trial court recorded that since the
plaintiff was probationer, it was possible for the employer to terminate
services without holding inquiry and the petitioner was accordingly
discharged from service. The order of dismissal of the suit came to be
confirmed in the appeal. The lower appellate court further confirmed the
findings of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff did not disclose
the details of the criminal case pending against him in the application
form.
5.1 The factum that plaintiff was undergoing probation period when he
was discharged from service is not in dispute. Condition No. 12 of the
appointment order provided that the probation period shall be of two
years from the date of joining of service. It further contemplated that
during this period, the competent authority may terminate the services of
the probationer without giving any notice or holding departmental inquiry
if the employee is found to be not suitable to be retained in the
employment.
5.2 The courts below noticed the stand of the authorities that on
2.6.1998 offence was registered against the plaintiff under section 498A
and other sections of IPC. Chargesheet was filed. At the time when the
C/SA/131/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2021
petitioner entered service, he did not disclose the said aspect which he
was required to do while filling up the form as per the requirement in
condition No. 10. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant plaintiff
and the reply of the appellant plaintiff was considered. Ultimately, he
was discharged from service during the probation period.
6. The dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and
dismissal of the appeal thereagainst were based on the aforesaid facts.
The courts below concurrently found that termination of service was
during the probation period and it was competent action on part of the
authorities. It was a discharge from service during the probation period
and the action cannot be said to have been founded on misconduct to
necessitate the holding of departmental inquiry.
6.1 In exercise of jurisdiction under section 100 of the CPC, the
concurrent findings on facts are not required to be interjected by this
court. The courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper way to
reach the aforesaid conclusion. The discharge of the appellant plaintiff
from service was held to be proper and legal on facts and on the basis of
evidence on record in that regard.
7. No question of law much substantial question of law, arises. The
appeal is summarily dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
C.M. JOSHI
