V H Lalkiya vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 7923 Guj

     C/SCA/5952/2007                             JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5952 of 2007


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

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

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                               V H LALKIYA
                                  Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
(MR AS SUPEHIA)(1658) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR K M ANTANI, AGP (1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                             Date : 07/07/2021
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for respondent No.1-State through video conference.

C/SCA/5952/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2021

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. Quashing and setting aside th order dated 09.01.2007 (Annexure 'E') and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits including back wages with 10% interest.

B. During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, respondent No.2 may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.

C. To grant such other benefits as may be deemed fit."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Lok Rakshak in the competitive examination held by the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board, Gandhinagar. By letter dated 21.08.2006, the petitioner was asked by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City to remain present for appointment of Un-armed Lok Rakshak.

3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Un-armed Lok Rakshak on a fixed monthly pay of Rs. 2500/- for five years on temporary basis by order dated 24.08.2006.

3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training at Gujarat Police Academy, Karai Gandhinagar from 25.08.2006.

3.3 A show-cause notice dated 04.12.2006 was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police Vadodara City calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to

C/SCA/5952/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2021

why he should not be discharged from service with regard to reasons stated in the said notice as the petitioner on his own left the training on 04.10.2006 for two days. The petitioner filed reply on 09.12.2006 explaining that due to news of ill- health of his mother, he was disturbed and thereafter he left the training even after rejection of the application for leave.

3.4 Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an order dated 09.01.2007 discharging the petitioner from service.

3.5 The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2007 filed this petition which was admitted by this Court [Coram: A.S.Dave, as His Lordship was then) by order dated 05.04.2007.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was appointed for a period of five years on a fixed salary of Rs. 2500/- and was served with the show-cause notice and was given personal hearing, he could not have been discharged from service by the respondent No.2 by passing order dated 09.01.2007 without holding a full-fledged departmental inquiry.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah relied upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor and another reported in 2021 (2)

C/SCA/5952/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2021

GLR 1211 in support of his submissions wherein, the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge held in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court that in absence of full scale departmental inquiry, service of the petitioner cannot be terminated in the manner in which it has been put an end.

6. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Antani states that the impugned order is of the year 2007 and thirteen years have passed. Respondent No.2-Commissioner has given cogent reasons for discharging the petitioner from service as he was on a temporary appointment of five years on fixed pay of Rs. 2500/-. It was submitted that no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter as no documentary evidence would be available to conduct full scale departmental inquiry for lapse of more than thirteen years.

7. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is true that the full scale departmental inquiry has not been conducted by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 09.01.2007 and as held by the Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor (supra) full scale departmental inquiry is sine qua non before dismissing any employee even though he is appointed on temporary basis on a fixed pay. However, in facts of the case, the petitioner has

C/SCA/5952/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2021

admitted in his reply dated 09.12.2006 that he had left the training without any permission after rejection of his leave application because of news of ill-health of his mother and he resumed the training within 02 days after meeting his mother. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner has left the training without permission. Moreover, in the impugned order dated 09.01.2007 it is stated that the petitioner has prepared a false examination schedule of ATKT exam and prayed for leave on 4th and 5th October, 2006 which was not granted by the authorized person and by telling lie, the petitioner has left the training. The petitioner never stated in his application that because of the ill-health of the mother he was required to go to his house.

8. In view of the above facts which are not disputed by the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter back as per the law laid down by the Division Bench in case of State of Gujarat vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor (supra) after more than thirteen years by directing the respondent No.2 to conduct full-scale departmental inquiry.

9. Therefore, the petition is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI