Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9610/2002 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9610 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
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 ?
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AK
GUPTA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHAKEEL A QURESHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR MS TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed challenging the judgment and order passed in O.A. No.165/1995
dated 29.10.2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(for short, “the C.A.T.”) as also the order passed in
Review Application No.01/2002 dated 12.02.2002.
2. The
facts in brief are that while the respondent herein was holding the
post of Scientific Assistant ‘C’ in the petitioner-Department, he was
served with a show cause Notice dated 04.06.1991 on the ground that
he had engaged himself in other gainful employment by impersonating
himself and thereby, committed breach of the relevant Rules. The
respondent submitted his reply dated 04.06.1991 to the said Notice
wherein, he admitted his guilt. However, on the very next day, he
submitted an explanation denying the charges levelled against him.
3. The
disciplinary authority passed an order whereby, the respondent was
ordered to be reverted to the lower post of Scientific Assistant ‘B’
until he is found fit after five years from the date of the order to
be restored to the higher post of Scientific Assistant ‘C’. Against
the said order of the disciplinary authority, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the
petitioner-Department. However, the same was rejected. Being
aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate
authority, the respondent preferred O.A. No.165/1995 before the
C.A.T. The C.A.T allowed the said application by judgment and order
dated 29.10.2001. The petitioners preferred Review Application
No.01/2002 before the C.A.T. However, the said application was
rejected by order dated 12.02.2002. Hence, this petition.
4. We
have heard Mr. Shakeel Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. MS Trivedi learned counsel for the respondent. It appears
from the record that when the respondent was served with the show
cause Notice on 04.06.1991, he submitted a written reply on the very
same day admitting his guilt. But, immediately on the next day, i.e.
on 05.06.1991, the respondent submitted another written explanation
stating that he had submitted the earlier reply dated 04.06.1991
under duress and denied the charges levelled against him. It appears
that the disciplinary authority ignored the written explanation dated
05.06.1991 submitted by the respondent wherein, he had denied the
charges, on the very next day after he had submitted his reply dated
04.06.1991.
5. In
our opinion, the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the
explanation dated 05.06.1991 submitted by the petitioner before
passing the impugned order of reversion to the lower post. The C.A.T
has rightly quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as
the appellate authority since the same were passed without any
application of mind. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings
given by C.A.T in its order and hence, find no reasons to entertain
this petition.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs.
[V.M.
SAHAI, J.]
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top