Gujarat High Court
Maheshkumar Gobardas Darji vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/17966/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17966 of 2019
================================================================
MAHESHKUMAR GOBARDAS DARJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
KEVAL H MAHARAJA(9062) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HEMAL A DAVE(3832) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MP PRAJAPATI(677) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 29/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State.
Learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Prajapati waives service of
notice of Rule for the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Talati cum Mantri by an order
dated 12.11.1982 and joined the service on 18.11.1982.
It is the case of the prosecution that a land bearing
Survey No.781 and 786 admeasuring 3 acres was
purchased from two individuals - Abuji Nathaji and
Govaji Nathaji Thakore for a consideration of Rs.80,000/-
and the Sale Deed was executed on 14.08.1995. It is
C/SCA/17966/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2021
further alleged that a revenue entry was to be effected
and therefore, the complainant approached the petitioner
in the Gram Panchayat for 7/12 Extract. It is alleged
that the petitioner made a demand of Rs.3,000/-. As the
complainant did not want to pay the amount to the
petitioner, he approached the ACB Office and a trap was
arranged. A case being ACB Crime Register No.4/1997
was registered for the offices punishable under Sections
7, 13(1)(6) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was in
total denial before the Trial Court and the Judge passed
the judgment and award of conviction and sentence on
30.12.2003. The petitioner was ordered to undergo two
years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Thereby, the respondent No.2 passed an order on
13.09.2004, whereby the petitioner was removed from
service. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2003, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Appeal No.65/2004 before this Court
and the Court vide order dated 23.11.2016 quashed and
set aside the conviction order dated 30.12.2003.
Thereby, the petitioner has been acquitted of the
charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
made a representation to the respondent No.2 on
C/SCA/17966/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2021
30.12.2016 and pointed out about the quashing and
setting aside the order of conviction. It was requested
by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 to revoke the
order of removal from service. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to regular
increment, leave encashment, provident fund, group
insurance. However, till date no action has been taken
on the representation made by the petitioner.
4. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that he would not press the claim of interest on the
aforesaid amount. It is submitted that despite the
aforesaid position, the respondent has not paid any
retirement benefits nor passed any order with regard to
the fixation of pay or consequential benefits and as a
consequence thereof, the petitioner has not been paid any
retirement benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner
was suspended during the period of trial and hence, the
period of suspension is also required to be regularized in
addition to regular increment, recommendations of 7 th
Pay Commission etc.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Prajapati, while placing
reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents
No.2 and 3 has submitted that looking to the seriousness
of the offence, the District Development Officer -
Mehsana had sought an opinion from the Director of ACB
C/SCA/17966/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2021
Office but no such opinion was received and the State
has not challenged the acquittal before the Supreme
Court. Thus, the acquittal of the petitioner, for the
offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act
has attained finality and even passage of four years the
respondent authority has not examined the issue despite
the request made by the petitioner vide representation
dated 30.12.2016.
6. The facts narrated hereinabove are not disputed. It is
not in dispute that by a judgment dated 23.11.2016
passed in Criminal Appeal No.65/2004, the petitioner has
been acquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed
vide judgment and order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the
Special Judge (ACB), (Fast Track Court), Mehsana, in
Special (ACB) Case No.10/1997 is quashed and set aside.
After acquittal, the petitioner vide a communication dated
30.12.2016 made a representation to the Officer to grant
him consequential benefits and reinstate him in service.
As on today, the petitioner has reached at the age of
superannuation and retired from the post of Talati cum
Mantri. Thus, the substratum of the cause for which
the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated
13.09.2004 is obliterated in view of the acquittal granted
by the Court. The acquittal is also not challenged before
the Supreme Court and the same has attained finality.
C/SCA/17966/2019 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2021
7. Under the circumstances and in light of the above, the
impugned order of removal dated 13.09.2004 is quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay all
the consequential benefits and re-fix the pay and pension
and grant the petitioner retirement benefits accordingly.
The respondents are also directed to regularize the
intervening period of suspension and the period from
date of removal till the petitioner reached the age of
superannuation. The entire exercise shall be undertaken
and complete within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of the writ of order of this Court. It is
clarified that if the consequential benefits, as narrated
above, are not paid to the petitioner, within the time as
stipulated by this Court, the same shall carry further
interest of 12% per annum.
8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
CAROLINE
