Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6951/1996 1/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6951 of 1996
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
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 ?
=========================================================
RAJENDRAPRASAD
D GOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SPECIAL
CHIEF POLICE OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
CHETAN K PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
3,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 12.04.1996 passed by the respondent No.1-
Special Chief Police Officer, Armed Unit and Training, Ahmedabad and
also prayed to direct the respondents, their officers, agents, etc.
to reinstate the petitioner in service with all backwages and to pass
all other incidental and consequential orders in this regard.
2.0 It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was recruited as
Armed Police Constable on 15.02.1983 in Group XII, S.R.P,
Gandhinagar. The petitioner has received a charge sheet dated
03.09.1994 holding the petitioner of misbehaviour in public and
threatening one Mr. Keshwani with his service rifle. Thereafter, a
Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, which
concluded on 02.05.1995. The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice
dated 17.05.1995 from respondent No. 1 asking the petitioner to show
cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service.
The petitioner has replied to the said show cause notice and vide
order dated 29.09.1995, petitioner was dismissed from service relying
upon the report submitted by the Disciplinary Authority. The
petitioner has filed appeal against the order of respondent No.1.
During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred
petition before this Court which came to be withdrawn. Thereafter,
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.04.1996 has passed order in
appeal dismissing the same. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the order passed in appeal, the petitioner has preferred present
petition.
3.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner further contended that the only role
attributed to the petitioner was that he had asked the said Keshwani
to close down his shop since the situation was tense and still curfew
was being imposed due to tense situation. However, the said
Mr.Keshwani, rushed to the Police station and registered a complaint
against the petitioner. On the said false complaint, the inquiry took
place and the petitioner has been dismissed from service without any
fault on the part of the petitioner.
3.1 Learned
advocate for the petitioner has further contended that Mr. Keshwani
had admitted before the Disciplinary Authority that no such incident
had taken place and he filed the complaint in the spurt of the
moment. He has further submitted that charge-sheet issued to the
petitioner alleges misconduct and threatening with service rifle
whereas the Disciplinary Proceedings have proceeded on the footing
that the petitioner has demanded Rs. 25/- from the said Mr. Keshwani.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that in examination
of Keshwani, it is stated that in the reply dated 08.01.1993 and
07.02.1993, the facts are not true. Mr.Keshwani has only singed on
the reply. He was not aware about the fact mentioned in the reply. He
has turned hostile. Hence, Mr. Keshwani has not supported the case of
the prosecution. Learned advocate submitted that there is no evidence
on record against the petitioner. In that view, the orders passed by
the respondents are required to be quashed and set aside.
4.0 Learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent has submitted that
the order passed by both the authorities are just and proper. He
submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited and being
disciplinary authorities, the said misconduct of the petitioner
cannot be allowed for law and order situation. It is required to be
noted that disciplinary force creates consideration of lawlessness
inasmuch as using revolver for said revolver, crime will lead to very
serious consideration. It will not be open for this Court to
substitute the order of the appellate authority to maintain the law
and order situation and disciplinary force.
5.0 I
have heard Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.
J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.
The charges which are levelled against the petitioner are very
serious. In my view, when gross misbehaviour of the petitioner is
very serious, and when the presence of the petitioner at the shop of
Mr. Keshwani is proved and the petitioner has threatened to kill to
Mr. Keshwani with service rifle, the authority has rightly considered
the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that
the order of dismissal is just and proper. If such a disciplinary
force itself violates the law, it will be more serious.
6.0 In
view of the above, the orders passed by both the authorities are just
and proper. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top