Jayantilal Mohanbhai Padriya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12954 Guj

    C/SCA/12543/2008                               JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12543 of 2008


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                   NO
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                            NO

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                  NO
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question                  NO
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       JAYANTILAL MOHANBHAI PADRIYA
                                   Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
APPEARANCE DELETED(23) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED(8) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.MEET THAKKAR, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                              Date : 31/08/2021

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is a petition of the year 2008. The endorsement indicates that

though the notice was issued by this Court, it has come back

unserved as the petitioner is not residing at the mentioned address.

Considering the factual detail of the petition, the Court has

C/SCA/12543/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

proceeded to hear the petition on merits.

2. Heard Mr.Meet Thakkar learned AGP for the State.

3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

prayer that the petitioner has made is to set aside the order of

dismissal dated 13.12.2002 confirmed in appeal on 24.03.2005 and

again approved by the authority in exercise of powers on

11.09.2008.

4. Facts in brief are as under:

4.1 That the petitioner was working as an unarmed constable

and joined the police force on 16.04.1980. He was thereafter

appointed as Head Constable on 16.10.1995.

4.2 Perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that on

21.07.2001, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for moral

turpitude inasmuch as, the charge indicates that the petitioner

forcibly entered the house of one Lilaben and committed an act of

rape. Apart from a criminal case lodged against the petitioner by

way of FIR bearing No.23 of 1999 invoking Sections 376, 323,

504, 506(2) and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, a departmental

inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner.

C/SCA/12543/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

4.3 In the departmental inquiry based on an assessment of

evidence, especially that of the Scientific Officer of the FSL and

the witness Shri Maheshgiri Mohangiri Gosai, it was found that the

petitioner had, in fact, committed an act of rape and therefore, the

authorities imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. That order

was carried out in appeal by the petitioner and subsequently in

revision. The order of the Revisional Authority would indicate that

the Authority observed that the penalty of dismissal shall be

subject to outcome of the proceedings before the Trial Court in

respect of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.

4.4 His application for reinstatement was also rejected on the

ground of pendency of the criminal proceedings.

5. Perusal of the impugned order of dismissal would indicate that it is

a case where an employee, particularly from the police force, has

engaged himself in the dastardly act of raping a lady. Based on an

assessment of evidence on the twin principles of preponderance of

probability and reasonableness, the authorities have found that the

petitioner does not deserve sympathy and therefore the order of

dismissal has been passed.

C/SCA/12543/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2021

6. That order has been confirmed in appeal and in revision albeit the

same being subject to outcome of criminal proceedings.

7. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities

below. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH