Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/703/2003 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 703 of 2003
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5239 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
AND
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
JAYRAM
PAMAVATAR BRAMBHATT - Appellant(s)
Versus
SECRETARY
& 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
CHETNABEN JOSHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR KIRIT I PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 16/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned counsel for the parties. The order of learned Single Judge
was read to us, and in this order, the learned Single Judge was
constrained to observe that in second call, the learned counsel for
the petitioner had remained absent. Therefore, the Court had
proceeded to decide the petition.
The
appellant was a Chowkidar, appointed with respondent – Trust.
The chargesheet was issued to him on 5.1.1996. On 15.1.1996, the
notice was issued and, thereafter, inquiry proceeded and the inquiry
was conduced on 24.6.1996. The charges levelled against the
delinquent were held proved. According to the Tribunal, there was no
infirmity in the inquiry so conducted. The entire procedure, as
prescribed in law, was followed, and not only that, the order which
was finally passed was after the inquiry report was sent to the
Vice-Chancellor of the University for approval, which was approved
by the Vice-Chancellor. Hence, the order of dismissing the appellant
from service was passed and upheld by the Tribunal.
The
learned Single Judge has also dealt with the question and have found
that serious charges of insubordination and indiscipline were there,
which we are delineating hereinafter. For ready reference, about 14
instances were quoted by the Inquiry Officer, of serious dereliction
of duties of the appellant, which are mentioned hereunder:-
The
Chowkidar is found irregular in his duties.
Have
left the place without intimation, and even though he is not
present, has signed the muster-roll.
Has
been found in deep sleep during the duty hours and though warned
many a times, no change in his behaviour.
Behaving
in insulting manner with staff members by using filthy language and
though warned, no improvement is shown.
He
is found carrying out duty of Home Guard without the permission of
the Institution.
Used
iron bar, which is the property of the Institution for his personal
use without permission.
Though
under suspension, has kept the key of main door, battery and
umbrella, which is the property of the Institution, in his custody,
illegally, and not deposited the same and have informed that he will
deposit the same at ease. This, keeping the keys of main door in his
custody, though under suspension, would be very harmful for the
institution.
Has
been found threatening staff members during service.
The
institution has suffered financial loss on account of theft and
damage caused to the properties, due to total negligence and his
habit of sleeping during duty hours and for this many notices are
given to him, but he has not shown any repentance for his acts.
To
Remain absent and leave duty place as per his wish without taking
permission.
To
sign the muster-roll in advance and irregularly and refusal to
accept the letters sent by the Institution.
Said
watchman and other two persons are highhanded and having disputed
nature. On that issue, Manager, Daffodil Pharma, Kadi had given
complaint in respect of the theft and disturbance which had taken
place in his company wherein it has been found that the name of
night Watchman Jayrambhai is there as accused along with other
accused.
Over
and above this, Principal of Shri Pramukh Swami Science and
H.D.Patel Arts College, Kadi who is having very responsible position
and status in the establishment, it is proved that the dispute was
raised with him and insultive and abusive language was used with him
and threat was given for beating him. Said matter could be
considered as too much serious and such which cannot be condoned.
Inspite
of repeated notices given by the Principal of the establishment to
said night Watchman for his different type of misconduct, no
improvement has been found in the conduce of the said person nor he
has expressed sorry for the same.
If
the misconduct, intolerable negligence of any subordinate officer
results in financial loss to the establishment and if he is found to
have been behaving in improper manner by administering threats and
does not show any improvement inspite of giving repeated notices or
warning and if he is not having any grievance in respect of his
conduct, then such type of notices or warning would result into
unnecessary burden on the administration of the establishment. Not
only that, but, if such type of misconduct is permitted to continue
for a long period an no actions are taken for the same, then it
would be having adverse effect on the other employees by passage of
time and that would adversely and seriously affect the
administration, and the administration cannot run properly.
In
view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion
that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was fully
justified. Since the learned counsel for the appellant was not
before us, we, with the help of learned counsel for the respondent –
Trust examined the record, perused the relevant material and we find
that the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal and the learned Single
Judge are prima-facie in accordance with law. No case for judicial
review is made out, when the inquiry was made as per the law laid
down and after giving due opportunity to the delinquent. We do not
find any interference is called for. No costs. The appeal,
therefore, stands dismissed.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top