Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 176 (GUJ)

MAHENDRASINH TEJUSINH RATHOD v. STATE

2003-03-28

J.N.PATEL

body2003
JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) IN SCAs No. 1577/2003, 1578/2003 and 1579/2003, this Court on 17-2-2003 had passed the order of issuing notice for final disposal pursuant to which Mr. Janak Raval for Mr. Manish Patel, appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. Mr. Raval states that respondent No. 4 is duly served. However, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 4. Mr. Dabhi, learned AGP has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. So far as SCA No. 3530/2003 is concerned, yesterday when it was mentioned, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was instructed to give advance copy to the office of the Government Pleader and today Mr. Dabhi has appeared in the matter stating that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 through Mr. M. A. Patel, Dy. Director, Primary Education. ( 2 ) THEREFORE, Rule in SCA No. 3530/2003. Mr. Dabhi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. With the consent of all the learned Counsel for the parties, this matter is also taken up for the final hearing with SCA No. 1577/2003 and allied matters. Since all these petitions are arising from the common facts and issue involved is also common, they are being dealt with together by this judgement. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. Raval appearing with Mr. Patel, Mr. Janak Raval for District Panchayat and Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the State Government and Director of Primary Education, it appears that the present case is fully covered by the decision of this Court dated 25-3-2003 delivered in SCA No. 3189/2003 and allied matters. The only distinguishing feature is that in the aforesaid decision the notice was issued by the TDO, Vadali, whereas in the present case, the notice pursuant to the circular has been issued by the TDO, Idar as per the notice dated 7-2-2003. In my view, no elaborate reasons are required to be recorded since the matter is covered by the said decision and since the stand on behalf of the petitioners is also the same and so is the case so far as the Government is concerned. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:4. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:4. 1) All the petitioners shall file separate undertaking to this Court that they shall not raise any objection in future regarding the recovery of the amount of penalty directly by appropriating 33% of the salary and other perquisites i. e. actual pay until they are in service and they shall also not raise any objection to the balance recovery to be made in case the concerned petitioners are retiring in normal course and they shall not raise any objection for recovery of such amount from the retiral benefits. The said undertaking shall also include that the concerned petitioner shall deposit the principle amount of LTC on or before 21-4-2003 and such undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today before this Court by each of the petitioners separately and the copy of the said undertaking shall be produced by the petitioners before the concerned authorities. 4. 2) The concerned petitioner shall also file undertaking as per circular dated 3-10-1988 before authority on or before 21-4-2003. 4. 3) If the principle amount of LTC is deposited on or before 21-4-2003 and if such undertaking as per above para 4. 1 is filed before this Court and the copy of the same is produced before the authorities, and if further undertaking is filed before concerned authority as per above para 4. 2 then in that case, the authorities shall recover twice the amount of LTC as penalty by directly appropriating 33% of the actual pay of the concerned employees and only 67% of the actual pay shall be actually paid to the concerned petitioners. Such recovery shall continue until the amount of penalty is fully recovered and if any of the concerned petitioners is retiring before the amount is fully recovered, the concerned authorities shall recover the said balance amount from the retiral benefits including the provident fund, gratuity, etc. by directly appropriating towards the balance amount of penalty. 4. 4) Until the principle amount of LTC and the penalty, as observed earlier, is fully recovered, the authorities shall not take any action for criminal prosecution or departmental inquiry against the employees concerned as per circular dated 3-10-1988. by directly appropriating towards the balance amount of penalty. 4. 4) Until the principle amount of LTC and the penalty, as observed earlier, is fully recovered, the authorities shall not take any action for criminal prosecution or departmental inquiry against the employees concerned as per circular dated 3-10-1988. It is made clear that upon failure of the concerned petitioners of depositing the principle amount of LTC and upon raising dispute regarding recovery of penalty inspite of the aforesaid undertaking to this Court and to the concerned authority the aforesaid directions shall automatically stand vacated in case of concerned petitioner and the authorities shall be at liberty to lodge criminal prosecution against the concerned petitioners in accordance with law and the authorities shall also be at liberty to take departmental proceedings including that of suspension of the employees concerned. The aforesaid liberty to the employer/authorities shall be in addition to the liability of the concerned petitioners, as the case may be, for breach of the undertaking and for the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act. ( 5 ) ALL these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. Office shall forward copy of the judgement dated 25-3-2003 passed in SCA No. 3189/2003 with the writ of these petitions. .