Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/234/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 234 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7756 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1369 of 2011
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 234 of 2011
=================================================
AMRISH
M UPADHYAY JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHREE
SAURASHTRAGANDHIJI GRAMODHAR TRUST & 6 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MS BELA A PRAJAPATI
for Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
MR SHIRISH JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
DS AFF.NOT FILED
(N) for Respondent(s) : 6,
None for Respondent(s) :
7,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
appeal has been preferred by Mr Amrish M Upadhyay, Joint Charity
Commissioner, Rajkot Region, Rajkot against the observations made by
the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.2.2011 in Special Civil
Application No. 7756 of 2010. At para 5 therein, the following
observations have been made :-
5. This
Court deems it proper to put on record that, ‘the officer was full of
arrogance, showing no respect to the Court, showing no repentance for
his conduct about which the Court was required to make the
observations in its earlier order and also on reading this affidavit.
This is for the consumption of the appointing/ disciplinary
authority of this officer.
The
officer of this rank, who is dealing with the public in discharge of
his duty everyday is conveying an impression about ‘the judicial
system’ in the State. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
such an officer is not fit to be continued in office. This Court
deems it necessary to direct the Registry to send a copy of the (i)
impugned order, a copy of (ii) Exhibit 12, which is the list of
documents produced with that, a copy of (iii) document at serial
no.43 (trust deed dated 11th May 1948), a copy of (iv)
the order of this Court dated 18th January 2011, (v) this
order, to the disciplinary authority/ appointing authority of the
officer for taking appropriate note of the same and to initiate
departmental proceedings, if deemed fit. It is expected that the
disciplinary authority will consider whether such an officer is
required to be continued in office or is required to be kept out of
office by passing an appropriate order of suspending him with
immediate effect, so that he does not damage the image of the
judiciary, any further.
2. The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the
appellant is not challenging the validity of the decision of the
Court made by order dated 21.2.2011 passed in the writ petition as
was preferred by Shree Saurashtra Gandhiji Gramodhar Trust & 4
others. The appellant only prays to delete the portion of the
observations as made at para 5 against the appellant, who was not a
party in person.
3. On 3.2.2011,
while notices were issued on the respondents, this Court allowed the
appellant to file an affidavit taking unconditional apology.
Thereafter, the appellant has filed an affidavit, para 4 of which
reads as follows :-
“4. I
say that I have tendered my apology unconditionally before the ld.
Single Judge. I have a very high regard for this Hon’ble Court and
being an employee of the State Government, I cannot try to undermine
the majesty of law and of this Hon’ble Court. I have no slightest
idea of showing any disrespect to this Hon’ble Court. I again tender
my unconditional apology with my folded hands to this Hon’ble Court.
I have never shown my arrogance to this Hon’ble Court and if
answering my question to the Hon’ble Court, if the Hon’ble Court felt
that I ought not to have answered the same, I again tender my
unconditional apology for the same. Before joining the service, I
have worked in this Hon’ble Court and I keep high esteem for this
Hon’ble Court and at no point of time, I have ever tried to show any
disrespect majesty of this Hon’ble Court. I tender my unconditional
apology to this Hon’ble Court with all my sincere feeling and all
humanity at my command and I earnestly request this Hon’ble Court to
accept the same.”
4. Mr Amrish
Upadhyay, Joint Charity Commissioner, now posted at Ahmedabad,
appeared in person and asked for unconditional unqualified apology.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted
that he has no objection if the observations are deleted, but
submitted that the officer should be more cautious while filing
affidavit before a Court.
5. Having heard
the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
fact that Mr Amrish Upadhyay has appeared in person and sought for
unconditional apology and has stated that he will not make such
mistake in future, we accept the apology and delete the observations
made against the officer at para 5 of the order dated 21.2.2011, as
quoted above. The substantive portion of the order dated 21.1.2011
passed in Special Civil Application No. 7756 of 2011 by the learned
Single Judge is not altered. It will be binding between the parties.
6. The appeal
and the Civil Application both stands disposed of.
[S. J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[J.
B. PARDIWALA, J.]
sundar/-
Top