Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8765/2011 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8765 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G. B. SHAH
Sd/-
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
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 ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=================================================
P
B DAREKAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH INSPECTOR GENERAL & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR MANISH J PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS ARCHANA U AMIN for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 05/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr Manish J Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Archana Amin, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner
in this petition challenges the order passed by the respondents No.2
and 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was
working as Constable in CISF, Ukai. A theft of 17 numbers of
troughing rollers took place on 5.10.2009. After issuing show cause
notice to the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended. After
completion of the departmental proceedings, the respondents, by order
dated 17.12.2010, imposed punishment of reduction of pay by 3 stages
from Rs. 10670/- to Rs.9750/- for a period of three years from the
date of issue of the order with further direction that the petitioner
will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and
that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect
of postponing his future increments of pay. This order was
challenged in Appeal and in Revision and the orders passed by the
punishing authority has been affirmed.
2. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the
petitioner was on guard duty when the theft took place. The
respondents have taken a lenient view in the matter while passing the
impugned orders. CISF is a Disciplined Force and for the charge of
theft, the action has rightly been taken by the respondent
authorities. We do not find any illegality in the impugned orders
passed by the authorities below.
3. In
the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top