Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/535/2007 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 535 of 2007
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3364 of 1993
=========================================================
JAIKISHAN
R TAILOR - Appellant
Versus
BILIMORA
MUNICIPALITY & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Appellant.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 23/07/2009
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
The
appellant, in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
on 4th December, 2004, in Special Civil Application No.
3364/1993.
2. The
brief facts:
2.1
The appellant was working as a Chief Officer of the respondent
Municipality. He was found to be indulging in grave misconduct and,
therefore, it was decided to initiate departmental proceedings
against him. Initially, on 14/15th November, 1992, the
appellant was given a memorandum of charges containing 11 charges and
was called upon to answer them within 7 days. The appellant failed to
reply the said charge sheet. The disciplinary proceedings proceeded
against him exparte and the inquiry officer ultimately submitted
report on 16.2.1993 and opined that the imputations of charges made
against the appellant were proved. It transpires from the order
impugned in this appeal that the learned Single did consider the
record and it was found that the charges were drawn in clear and
unambiguous language and were served by notice dated 24.11.1992. The
appellant did not accept the service of the said notice and,
therefore, the same was sent to him by registered post and also under
certificate of posting. He again refused to accept the same by
hand-delivery. The said notice was, therefore, served upon the
appellant by affixing. The appellant was sent the documents by
registered post on 19.1.1993 and was called upon to give reply to the
said imputations of charges within 7 days therefrom. He was also
intimated about the dates of hearing during the course of inquiry
proceedings, but, the appellant chose not to remain present before
the inquiry officer. The appellant, for the first time, asked for
examination of certain witnesses in his defence by way of
representation against the inquiry report. The appellant had not
submitted any reply to the charge sheet earlier, but, belatedly sent
reply to the President of the Municipality on 1.3.1993, which the
President refused to accept. In fact, on 1.3.1993 itself the order of
dismissal was already passed.
2.2 In
the meantime, the appellant had approached this Court with Special
Civil Application No.187/1993, but, the Court was not inclined to
accept the petition on its merits and the petitioner-appellant,
therefore, withdrew the petition in order to enable him to approach
the State Government by way of an appeal or revision. The appellant
was also permitted to make representation before the Board. This
order was passed on 26.2.1993. Pursuant to that order, a
representation was made on 1.3.1993 by the appellant to the President
of the Nagarpalika, but, before that can be served, order of
dismissal was already passed.
2.3 It
appears that the appellant has not preferred any appeal or revision
to the State Government after 26.2.1993 for the purpose with which
the petition was withdrawn.
2.4 Thereafter,
the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No.3364/1993, which
came to be turned down by the impugned order dated 4.12.2004.
3. We
have heard learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the appellant.
4. Mr.Majmudar
has harped upon the only averment that the proceedings were proceeded
exparte and that the order of dismissal was passed without
considering the representation of the appellant, which was made
pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No. 187/1993, dated 26.2.1993.
5. It
has to be noted that he has not been able to meet with what is
observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order regarding
the merits of the case, i.e., the appellant consistently refused to
accept the notice and memorandum of charges as well as documentary
evidence and chose not to appear before the inquiry officer. The
contention that the principles of natural justice are violated,
therefore, cannot be accepted.
5.1 It
is also to be noted that the order of dismissal came to be passed on
1.3.1993. The representation that is made by the appellant is also
dated 1.3.1993. Necessarily, therefore, the same must have been
served thereafter. Therefore, there is no question of considering
that representation by the respondent authority.
6. The
learned advocate for the appellant has not been able to point out any
defect or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. We
are, therefore, of the view that the Letters Patent Appeal does not
merit acceptance. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[K.A.Puj,J.]
(patel)
Top