Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 843 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Zamubhai

2019-10-03

A.J.SHASTRI, VIKRAM NATH

body2019
ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13263 of 2015, whereby, the petition came to be allowed in part with consequential directions, which reads as under: "8. In aforesaid view of the matter, present petition is allowed in part. The order dated 19/21.01.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2-Additional Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar in Dispute Application No. 11 of 2012 and the order dated 25.06.2008 passed by the Secretary, Panchayats, Rural Housing and Rural Development, Gandhinagar, are hereby quashed and set aside so far as rejecting the prayer with respect to regularization of period of suspension is concerned and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 4-the District Development Officer, Valsad to consider such issue de novo, giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and without being influenced by any of the orders, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs." 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the original petitioner was appointed as Gramsevak in District Panchayat, Kutch-Bhuj in the year 1969, and subsequently, came to be promoted while the original petitioner - opponent herein was working as Extension Officer, Agriculture (IRDP), he was served with a charge-sheet dated 07.12.1996 by leveling five charges upon him. The main thrust of the allegation that the petitioner had committed irregularities in making the disbursement of subsidy to various beneficiaries under the scheme floated by the Government. After conducting and granting full opportunity to the original petitioner - opponent herein and upon conclusion of inquiry, it seems that on 16.02.2001, an order of dismissal came to be passed, whereby, the original petitioner - opponent herein was dismissed from the service and Rs. 57,500/- was ordered to be recovered from the original petitioner towards the loss caused by him to the Government. But, during the efflux of time, he reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2003. 2.1. 57,500/- was ordered to be recovered from the original petitioner towards the loss caused by him to the Government. But, during the efflux of time, he reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2003. 2.1. The original petitioner - opponent herein had challenged the said order of dismissal and after exhausting alternative remedy and having failed at an appellant stage departmentally, an appeal came to be filed before the Additional Development Commissioner, Gandhinagar, in which, learned Commissioner, according to the appellants, has partly allowed the order of dismissal dated 16.02.2001 came to be quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the District Development Officer, Valsad to decide it afresh. Pursuant to the said order, subsequently, in response to the order dated 19.01.2004, the original petitioner - opponent herein was reinstated in service that since the opponent is reached to the age of superannuation, he was permitted to retire with immediate effect i.e. on 30.06.2003 vide order dated 25.02.2004. Thereafter, de novo inquiry was initiated against the original petitioner - opponent herein whereby all the four charges, which were levelled against him were held to be proved and the District Development Officer then passed an order dated 23.01.2007 to inflict the penalty of deduction of Rs. 500/- from the pension of the original petitioner. However, vide order dated 01.03.2007, the District Development Officer, Valsad was pleased to withdraw the order dated 23.01.2007, since by that time, the order dated 23.01.2007 is not complied with and the original petitioner - opponent herein preferred a Special Civil Application 8863 of 2007 and on 03.04.2007, this Court, according to the appellants, was pleased to direct the concerned authorities to implement the order dated 23.01.2007, and consequently, further directed to consider the question with regard to regularizing the suspension period i.e. from 16.02.2001 to 30.06.2003. 2.2. It further appears from the record that the Review Application also filed by the concerned authorities, being Misc. Civil Application No. 2212 of 2007 with a relief to modify the order dated 03.04.2007, which came to be rejected. It further indicates that the original petitioner - opponent herein has again preferred a Special Civil Application 6033 of 2008 before this Court, and subsequently, during pendency of the aforesaid petition, the original respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 25.06.2008, whereby, the punishment of deduction of Rs. It further indicates that the original petitioner - opponent herein has again preferred a Special Civil Application 6033 of 2008 before this Court, and subsequently, during pendency of the aforesaid petition, the original respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 25.06.2008, whereby, the punishment of deduction of Rs. 500/- per month from pension on permanent basis came to be imposed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the original respondent No. 4 passed an order on 10.07.2008 and confirmed the order, which has been passed by respondent No. 1 dated 25.06.2008. As a result of this, this Court was pleased to permit the original petitioner - opponent herein to make a fresh representation before the competent authority in accordance with the order dated 03.04.2007 and thereby, the petition came to be disposed of. Accordingly, the opponent herein made a representation on 30.01.2009 requesting the authorities to release the pensionary benefits and to pay unpaid amount of gratuity and requested to make payment of arrears of salary. The said representation was dealt with by authorities i.e. respondent No. 4, who passed an order dated 23.06.2009 and since did not find favour with regard to the period of suspension and its regularization, the opponent herein filed a Special Civil Application No. 12214 of 2009 with a request to consider the representation and regularize the period of suspension, as indicated above. Repeated representations having been made by the original petitioner -opponent herein which again led the opponent to file Special Civil Application No. 4636 of 2011, in which, again the Court directed to make a fresh representation before the concerned authorities. Resultantly, the original petitioner - opponent herein further made a representation on 01.02.2011 and once again requested the authorities to regularize the period of suspension from 16.02.2001 to 30.06.2003 and having not considered, the opponent herein again filed a Special Civil Application No. 12675 of 2011 before this Court on 30.08.2011, in which, this Court directed the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representation within a period of three months, since the authorities have not considered the representation favourably, the opponent herein filed Dispute (Vivad) Application No. 11 of 2012 before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19/21.01.2013 was pleased to partly allow the request of opponent herein, whereby, the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 23.06.2009 was quashed and set aside. However, with respect to a request regarding regularization of suspension period, interference is not made by the Secretary Rural Housing and Rural Department vide order dated 25.06.2008. Subsequently, it further appears that the opponent herein has filed a Special Civil Application No. 13263 of 2015 before this Court and the Court on 13.08.2018 was pleased to pass an order, as indicated above. Resultantly, the appellants-State Authorities, being aggrieved, have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh appearing for the appellants-State who contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the order specially when several rounds of litigation went on and still the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 4 - Authority i.e. original authority - the District Development Authority, Valsad and considered the issue de novo giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that, as indicated above, time and again, the opponent herein has approached this Court and under one pretext or the other, went on making representations, but having remained unsuccessful throughout with regard to an issue related to the regularization of period of suspension, no fair cause is given to the appellants to litigate. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that the authorities in true letter and spirit has considered the quantum of penalty and on the contrary, dismissal order is converted into an order of deduction of merely Rs. 500/- from pension, the learned Single Judge ought not to have considered the case of opponent herein. It has further been submitted that granting of such order would lead to multiplicity of proceedings further. Resultantly, since the issue is practically left it with regard to regularization of suspension period, the order could not have been passed. However, be that as it may, learned Assistant Government Pleader has ultimately requested to pass a suitable order in the interest of Justice. 4. Resultantly, since the issue is practically left it with regard to regularization of suspension period, the order could not have been passed. However, be that as it may, learned Assistant Government Pleader has ultimately requested to pass a suitable order in the interest of Justice. 4. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader and having gone through the contents of the order and the sequence of events, we found that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, on the contrary, after considering the relevant provisions of the Bombay Civil Service Rules it was found by the learned Single Judge that the issue regarding regularization of period of suspension deserves reconsideration and accordingly, a direction was given to reconsider the issue and we are not impressed by the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader about challenge to the said order of the learned Single Judge. We have observed that while arriving at a decision, the learned Single Judge has considered the entire history of litigation and has also perused the relevant rules pertaining to an issue of inquiry as well as penalty and only thereafter, the directions have been issued. We see no reason to interfere since the same has not prejudicially affected the authorities in any form and in that being so, the Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no interference. 5. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.