Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1951/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1951 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 62 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9221 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1951 of
2010
=========================================================
KIRITCHANDRA
CHINUBHAI PANDYA C/O KALUBHAI P THAKOR - Appellant(s)
Versus
CENTRAL
BANK OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
G R VIJAYALAKSHMI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR KJ MACWAN for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 14/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. This
Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order, passed in Special Civil
Application No. 62 of 2009, on 13.01.2009, whereby the petition filed
by the petitioner came to be dismissed, summarily.
2. The facts giving
rise to the petition were that the petitioner-appellant was working
with the respondent No.1-Bank, since 1982. He came to be discharged
from service, somewhere in the year 2005, after holding a
departmental inquiry. The charges against him were of unauthorized
absence for a long period. To challenge the order of his discharge
from services, with all benefits of superannuation, dated 19.10.2005,
the petition was preferred.
3. The learned Single
Judge found that the petitioner-appellant remained absent
unauthorizedly, for a long period, repeatedly. The petitioner did
not participate in the departmental inquiry, though, opportunities
were given to him, for four times, and therefore, was discharged from
services. Hence, this appeal.
4. Heard, learned
Advocate, Ms. G. Vijayalakshmi, for the petitioner-appellant and
learned Advocate, Mr. K.J. Macwan, for the respondents.
5. Ms. Vijayalakshmi,
learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant was
unable to attend the office because of his mental and physical
ailment. She has relied on the document produced at Annexure-A
to the petition, which is a certificate issued by a Doctor, to show
that there was some damage to his brain. The said certificate was
issued in the year 1999. The learned Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the appellant has recovered fully and he is, now, not
suffering from any disorder.
6. From the record we
find that the appellant has been a habitual absentee. In the year
2001-2002, he remained absent from the duty from 29.10.2001 to
31.10.2002, for 316 days, where he was imposed a minor penalty, after
a due inquiry. But, thereafter, he again remained absent from duty,
from 18.06.2003 to 08.05.2005 and from 24.12.2004 to 21.04.2005, on
two occasions, for a period of 216 days and 119 days, respectively.
It appears that the petitioner appellant did not participate in the
Departmental Proceedings,
although opportunities, on four occasions, were given to him. This
would indicate his negligence and lack of discipline. In this set of
circumstances, we do not think that the punishment imposed, of
discharging him with all retiral benefits, is unduly harsh, which
would call for judicial intervention.
7. The learned Civil
Judge was justified in passing the impugned order.
8. We
do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails
and is dismissed.
9. In
view of the order passed in the appeal, civil application shall not
survive and it stands disposed of, accordingly.
(A.L.DAVE,
J.)
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,J.)
Umesh/
Top