SCA/8092/2008 1/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8092 of 2008 ========================================================= KANDARPKUMAR D ACHARYA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SL VAISHYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 29/04/2010 ORAL ORDER
This
matter was earlier dismissed for default on 20.10.2008 on the ground
of consistent absence of learned counsel for the petitioner on the
dates fixed for hearing. Subsequently, the matter was restored vide
order dated 20.04.2010 on condition that the matter shall be
peremptorily heard finally today. However, today, when the matter was
called out, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for time on
one ground or the other. But, the same was rejected. Therefore, the
Court issued a warning to learned counsel Mr. S. L. Vaishya that he
may not adopt such delay tactics in future and consequently, the
matter was heard on merits.
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by respondent no.1 by which
the petitioner was removed from the post of full-time Member of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patan.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a full-time
Member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patan vide
Notification dated 30.01.2006. The petitioner and a co-Member of the
Forum, namely, Mrs. Parul Jayantilal Parikh, were served with a show
cause notice / letter 25.01.2008 issued by the Registrar of Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad to show cause as to why
their services should not be terminated in view of the serious
allegations levelled against them. The petitioner gave his reply to
the same.
3. Pursuant
thereto and when the petitioner did not receive any reply from the
respondent apropos the reply filed by him, the petitioner filed
application Ex.1, along with the plaint of the suit and an
application for interim injunction, before the Civil Court, Patan for
permitting him to institute the suit against the respondents by
waiving the service of statutory notice u/s. 80 of C.P.C. The said
application Ex.1 was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2008. On the
application Ex.5, initially, interim injunction was granted. However,
subsequently, vide order dated 15.05.2008, the said application was
dismissed.
4. Against
the said order dated 15.05.2008, the petitioner had preferred Misc.
Civil Appeal No.15/2008 before the District Court, Patan. The said
appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2008. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the
record that the petitioner was found guilty of mis-behaving with a
lady co-Member of the Forum and also of using abusive language at
her. After conducting appropriate inquiry, both the petitioner and
the said lady co-Member have been removed from the service. So far as
the petitioner is concerned, the charges that stood proved against
the petitioner are of a very serious nature. Being a Member of a
quasi-judicial body, the petitioner ought not to have behaved in the
manner in question, particularly, with a lady co-Member. Thus,
looking to the seriousness of the charges and the conduct of the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the
petitioner is just and proper and I find no reasons to interfere with
the same.
6. Consequently,
the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*