Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6624/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6624 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8421 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8490 of 2010
=========================================================
F
H SHAIKH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & 2 –
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner.
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MS VISHEN,
ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 16/08/2010
ORAL
COMMON ORDER
Order
on Special Civil Application Nos. 6624/2010 & 8421/2010
RULE.
Order
on Special Civil Application Nos.6624/2010, 8421/2010 &
8490/2010.
All
These petitions are preferred by the same petitioner. Special Civil
Application No. 6624/2010 is preferred to challenge the petitioner’s
suspension. Special Civil Application No.8421/2010 is against denial
of promotion and Special Civil Application No.8490/2010 is against
departmental inquiry.
2. All
these three petitions are founded on the facts which are interrelated
to be able to appreciate the petitioner’s case as well as the case of
the respondents and, therefore, they are required to be heard
together.
3. Having
heard learned advocate Mr.Upadhyay for the petitioner and learned
Advocate General Mr.Trivedi, appearing with learned AGP Ms.Vishen,
for the respondents, one thing clearly emerges that the matters do
involve serious questions which need to be addressed to by the Court,
which cannot be done at this stage and, therefore, all the petitions
are ordered to be admitted.
4. Learned
advocate Mr.Upadhyay, during the course of his arguments, has taken
this Court through the sequential events that have taken place and
the three document, upon which the respondents rely, so also the
petitioner relies. The endeavour on the part of the petitioner is to
demonstrate that the respondent-authorities are interested in denying
his promotion and consequential benefits and to do so, they have gone
to the extent of manipulating the events, proceedings and even the
record. It was contended that the petitioner is due to retire on
30.04.2011 and the respondents’ endeavour is to delay and dodge the
final outcome of these petitions, and even if he succeeds thereafter,
he would, at the best, can get monetary benefits, but, not the
satisfaction of being promoted and working as such and this is done
with a view to support the immediate junior of the petitioner. He,
therefore, urges that the petitioner’s interest may be protected and
his suspension may be ordered to be revoked, he may be reinstated and
promotional order may be directed to be issued by way of interim
relief.
5. On
the other hand, the learned Advocate General has come out with the
very argument that the petitioner himself has committed several
misconducts and with the help of some of his well-wishers in the
department has even manipulated and tampered the record. He cannot be
permitted to be in service and ultimately, if he succeeds at the end
of the hearing, whatever loss is caused to him, would be made good
and even exemplary costs may be awarded in favour of the petitioner
and against the Government. Reliance was placed on some of the
judicial pronouncements where a view was taken that the Court should
avoid interference with such action at interim relief stage. It was,
therefore, urged that the interim relief may not be granted in favour
of the petitioner.
6. Having
regard to the rival submissions, it emerges that both the sides have
come out with allegations and counter-allegations of serious nature
against their respective rivals. The petitioner alleges tampering and
manipulation of records by the respondent-authorities only to harass
him and deny his legitimate rights. The respondents allege that the
petitioner has tampered with the records and has created evidence in
his favour with the help of some of his well-wishers in the office.
The learned Advocate General, during his arguments, submitted that
even a prosecution is being launched and investigation is going on
in this regard.
7. Both
the sides have tried to demonstrate that manipulation or tampering at
the hands of the other side has caused prejudice to their respective
interest. The picture that emerges is like a three dimension picture,
which at one angle looks correct and from other angle also looks
correct. At this stage, it is not possible to reach to a conclusion
that this is an exceptional case, where the Court should exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction and grant a mandate revoking suspension
and granting promotion to the petitioner. It would virtually amount
to allowing the petitions. The interim relief sought by the
petitioner in the petitions, therefore, cannot be granted and is
refused.
8. However,
considering the fact that the petitioner is to retire in April, 2011,
this Court is of the view that the matters need to be heard
expeditiously and, therefore, they are expedited and ordered to be
listed for final hearing in the week commencing from 15.11.2010.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
(patel)
Top