Gujarat High Court
Vinodbhai Ishvarbhai Patel vs District Panchayat Sabarkantha on 24 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5772 of 2024
==========================================================
VINODBHAI ISHVARBHAI PATEL
Versus
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SABARKANTHA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KETULKUMAR V PATEL(10121) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. None present for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda who has been asked to
assist this Court.
2. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the present
petition has been filed on 01.03.2024 and whereas, except for
the matter having been adjourned around 32 times and orders
showing that learned advocate for the petitioner had not
appeared, no substantial hearing ever appears to have been
taken place.
2.1. While this Court on 12.06.2025 had inter alia observed
that though the matter had been adjourned for around 30
times and order-sheet also reflected that advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
petitioner had either not remained present or had filed
sick/leave note and as a last chance, while matter had been
adjourned to 23.06.2025 with a direction that learned
advocate shall make it convenient to appear before this Court
or make suitable alternative arrangements, yet, neither when
the matter had been taken up yesterday nor when the matter
had been taken up today, learned advocate had remained
present nor had made any alternative arrangements. This
Court, under such circumstances, had directed learned AGP
Ms.Nirali Sarda to assist the Court though the State is not a
party and whereas, this case is taken up for hearing with the
assistant of learned AGP.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an
order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the District Panchayat,
Sabarkantha whereby the petitioner who was appointed as a
Panchayat Assistant (Talati-cum-Mantri) in the year 2005 had
been terminated from service.
3.1. Considering the averments made in the application, it
would appear that the main ground on which the interference
is being sought for is that the order is passed without
following any procedure and whereas, it is averred in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
petition that the said order requires interference as it is
stigmatic.
3.2. At this stage, attention of this Court has been drawn to
paragraph no.2.8 of the petition which reads as thus:-
"2.8. The petitioner humbly states that the
petitioner was convicted u/s 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 of IPC in criminal case no.190/2010 and
sentenced to undergo 03 years imprisonment by the
Hon'ble 2nd additional judicial magistrate first class
court at Modasa on 13.12.2010 which was challenged
by both the petitioner and the State of Gujarat by way
of Criminal Appeal No.10/2013 and 33/2013
respectively before the 3rd additional session judge at
Modasa, wherein, sentence was reduced and order
for imprisonment of 15 months on 13.11.2013.
Further, the same was challenged by both the State
of Gujarat and the petitioner before this Hon'ble
Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.208/2014 and
Criminal Revisions Application No.719 of 2013
respectively, wherein, the judgment passed by ld.
JMFC, Modasa was restored on 12.1.2016. Hence, the
same was challenged by the Petitioner before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP(Cr) No.3030 of
2016, wherein, the order of this Hon'ble Court was
set-aside on 14.1.2020. Annexed hereto and marked
as ANNEXURE-F (Pg. No.32-34) is a copy of the order
dated 14.1.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court."
3.3. It would appear upon perusing paragraph no.2.8 that the
petitioner had been convicted for the same reason for which
he had been removed from service for offences under Sections
406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Criminal Case No.190/2010 and sentenced to undergo three
years' imprisonment by the learned 2 nd Additional Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Modasa vide judgment and order
dated 13.12.2010. It would appear that both the petitioner
and the State had preferred Criminal Appeals No.10/2013 and
33/2013 respectively against the said decision and whereas,
the Sessions Court had reduced the sentence to a period of 15
months on 13.11.2013.
3.4. It appears that the same had been challenged by the
State and the petitioner before this Court by way of Criminal
Appeal No.204/2014 and Criminal Revision Application
No.719/2013 respectively and whereas, it would appear
according to the petitioner that the judgment passed by the
learned JMFC was restored vide judgment dated 12.01.2016
by this Court.
3.5. According to the petitioner, the same had been
challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court by
preferring Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3030/2016
and whereas, the order of this Court was set aside on
14.01.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
4. Upon perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which is annexed to the petition along with the decision of this
Court dated 12.01.2016, a different picture emerges, yet,
without delving into that issue any further, what would appear
is that in any case, the decision of the Sessions Court of
reducing the sentence for a period of 15 months had stood
confirmed. Thus, it would appear that the petitioner had been
convicted and had undergone sentence for around 15 months
for the said offence.
4.1. Having perused the averments once again, it would
appear that there is not a whisper in the petition as regards
why the present petition should be entertained after 15 years
of the impugned order and whereas, while it is attempted to
be mentioned that in the year 2009 the petitioner had not
been convicted, yet, as of today, it would appear that the
petitioner had been convicted and had also undergone
imprisonment. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that the
petition being belated, without any reason assigned for
condoning the delay in preferring the petition, is not required
to be entertained on that ground only.
4.2. Furthermore, as it appears that the petitioner had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5772/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
convicted for the very selfsame misconduct for which he had
been removed, on merits also, the petitioner would not have
any case whatsoever which would persuade this Court to
interfere in the order of termination. Hence, the petition fails
and is hereby rejected as dismissed.
5. Considering the fact that learned advocate in spite of
repeated opportunities has not appeared before this Court
and whereas, since the conduct of learned advocate clearly
appears not to be satisfactory as an officer of the Court,
therefore, cost quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the
Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee is imposed
upon learned advocate which shall be deposited within a
period of four weeks from the date the order is uploaded on
the portal of Gujarat High Court and whereas, in case the
amount is not deposited, then it will be open for the
Committee to take appropriate action against learned
advocate in accordance with law.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
