Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 323 (GUJ)

Hanifbhai Hasambhai Multani v. State Of Gujarat

2024-02-15

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- “(A) be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and/or set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and the respondents as they are in violation of principles of natural justice and/or otherwise discriminatory. (B) be pleased to pass such other and further order/orders in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. (C) Cost of this petition may please be provided for.” 2. The facts of the petition, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was employed as Unarmed Police constable in the year 1984 and was serving in Surat city and thereafter he was transferred from Surat city to Rajkot on 07.11.2001 on account of secret report / information received by the Commissioner of Police Surat city. That the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.11025 of 2011 challenging the transfer order before this Court whereby this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice P. P. Majmudar) rejected the petition on 20.01.2002. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police Rajkot city issued charge-sheet to the petitioner for departmental inquiry on two grounds i.e. (i) for unauthorized absence on duty of 715 days and (ii) for taking part in Student Islamic Movement of India and he was suspended from the service w.e.f. 24.10.2003. The Police Commissioner, Rajkot city i.e. Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from the service vide order dated 30.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and no any decision was taken in appeal, he preferred Special Civil Application No.2069 of 2012 for appropriate direction to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. This Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. M. Chhaya) has disposed of the petition on 14.02.2012 and directed the concerned authority to decide the appeal on its merits as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31.05.2012. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal and against the order of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has preferred revision application before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed and confirmed the order of the concerned authorities. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the present petition is preferred. 4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal and against the order of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner has preferred revision application before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed and confirmed the order of the concerned authorities. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders, the present petition is preferred. 4. Heard Mr.Amit Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents at length. Perused the materials on record. 5. Mr.Amit Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was serving as Unarmed Police Constable in Surat city and he was transferred from Surat city to Rajkot city on account of certain secret information. He has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the petitioner from the service, against which, he had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He has submitted that against the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner had preferred revision application before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 had confirmed the orders and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authorities are required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. He has submitted that both the authorities have without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner such orders have been passed. He has submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders of both the authorities deserve to be quash and set aside. 6. Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has objected the petitioner and has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply. She has submitted that the petitioner has committed misconduct and, therefore, after considering the seriousness of the charge leveled against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order on the ground of absenteeism and, therefore, there is no any illegality committed by the authorities while passing the impugned orders and no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. 7. 7. Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was serving as Unarmed Police Constable and due to secret information, he was transferred from Surat city to Rajkot City and against the order of transfer, he had preferred Special Civil Application No.11025 of 2001 which came to be rejected. It appears that the Police Commissioner, Rajkot city issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and he was suspended from the service and, thereafter, he was dismissed from the service and against the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 which came to be dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. That the petitioner had preferred revision application before respondent No.1 which came to be dismissed and both the authorities have without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the said orders. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner can be considered by the concerned authority and decide the same afresh within a reasonable time. Hence, the following order is passed: (a) The petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The petitioner is directed to file representation before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority shall decide such representation afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or his representative. (c) The Revisional Authority shall decide the representation as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. It is made clear that the Revisional Authority shall pass appropriate order without being influenced by the earlier observations made by both the authorities. 8. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.