Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9862/1994 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9862 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=============================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================================
B
R PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YN OZA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 28th July 1994
in respect of reversion/reduction in rank of the petitioner from the
post of Mamlatdar (Class-II) to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar
(Class-III) passed by the respondents, with all consequential and
incidental benefits.
It
is the case of the petitioner that on 25th March 1965,
the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Revenue Department at
Ahmedabad. Thereafter, on 16th January 1988, the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Mamlatdar (Class-II). Since
then he has been working at various places as Mamlatdar, Class-II
officer. That on 18th February 1994, the petitioner was
transferred as City Mamlatdar, Class-II Officer to Nadiad. The
respondents on 28th July 1994 passed the impugned order
of reversion/ reduction in rank of the petitioner from the post of
Mamlatdar (Class-II) to the post of Deputy Mamlatdar (Class-III)
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Hence, the present petition.
It
is the main argument advanced by the learned advocate for the
petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the
respondent-authority without affording any reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the same is against the
principles of natural justice and, therefore, the petition is
required to be allowed.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
petitioner and documents produced on record, it clearly transpires
that the respondent-authority has passed the impugned order without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, only
on the ground of principles of natural justice, the impugned order
is vitiated and it is required to be quashed and set aside.
In
view of aforesaid observations, the present petition is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 28th July 1994 passed
by the respondent-authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the respondent-authority for deciding the same
afresh by issuing notice to the petitioner and affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to him and thereafter to pass a speaking
order. It is, however, made clear that the respondent-authority
will consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner before
him. It is required to be noted that this Court has not examined the
matter on merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top