Director, District Rural ... vs Rajeshkumar Abhesih Bamaniya
2022 Latest Caselaw 7454 Guj

       C/LPA/265/2022                        ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 265 of 2022
                              In
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8293 of 2019
                             With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2022
          In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 265 of 2022
=============================================
           DIRECTOR, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
                               Versus
                  RAJESHKUMAR ABHESIH BAMANIYA
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP on ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO
GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 5
=============================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
       and
       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                         Date : 29/08/2022

                           ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

1. By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Director of District Rural Development Agency has challenged the judgment dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8293 of 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has decided the said petition relying upon the decision dated 24.07.2020 rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019, wherein the issue was undoubtedly similar to the issue involved in the present matter.

2. Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing on behalf of the appellant would

C/LPA/265/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

submit that the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for hearing. However, on query, he would submit that no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the implementation, execution and operation of the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019. Learned advocate has, therefore, requested to admit the present appeal and keep it pending till the Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment dated 24.07.2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the respondent - Government has placed on record several orders passed by different Benches and would submit that the coordinate Bench has dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by making appropriate observations. He has particularly taken us through the oral order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.270 of 2021 and would submit that the present appeal be dismissed by making appropriate observations.

4. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2022 as also order dated 17.02.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.270 of 2021 and judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019.

4.1 The coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019

C/LPA/265/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

has observed as follows in paragraphs 8 and 9.

"8. The bone of contention of appellants - State authorities is that since the original petitioners are employed on a contract basis and fixed pay, the Department is not under an obligation to conduct a detailed full-scale departmental inquiry. Now, this contention has been the subject matter of scrutiny on earlier occasion before a Coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 between Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai Modh, decided on 20.2.2018. The relevant observations contained in the said decision are reflecting in Para.4.1 which are also based upon the decision of the Apex Court and in consonance with the provision of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said observations have also been considered at length by the learned Single Judge which are reflecting in Para. 5.7 of the impugned order.

9. Yet in another decision again by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019 between Rahul Aydanbhai Vak v. State of Gujarat, decided on 15.4.2019, in which the same issue has been considered. The relevant discussion of the Division Bench in the said case is contained in Para Nos.7, 8 & 9, in which in no uncertain terms, almost in similar set of circumstance, the Division Bench has clearly opined that full-scale departmental inquiry will have to be undertaken, if initiation of action on the basis of unsatisfactory work, gross negligence or indiscipline or any act which may tantamount to be stigmatic and as such, consistently this view has been clearly opined by the Division Bench."

4.2 While disposing of the petition, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows in paragraph 6 and has permitted the State Authorities to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

"6. Considering the aforesaid decisions, more particularly, in view of the decision of the Division Bench dated 24.07.2020, the petition is allowed. The order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the respondent DRDA is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith. It is however made clear that on reinstatement, it is open for the respondent agency to

C/LPA/265/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

institute appropriate inquiry for the event for which the petitioner has been sought to be removed."

4.3 We are of the opinion that in absence of any stay against implementation, execution and operation of the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, pendency of Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 itself would not be a ground to admit the present Letters Patent Appeal, which involves an issue which has already been decided by the coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019.

5. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal, however as observed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.6 of the decision dated 18.01.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.8293/2019, it would be open for the appellant to proceed against the private respondents herein in accordance with law. Present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, no order in Civil Application for interim relief and same is disposed of accordingly.

(A.J.DESAI, J)

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) T. J. Bharwad