Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9925/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9925 of 2010
=========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA
POPATLAL TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PUNIT B JUNEJA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 25/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER On
14th October 2010, this Court passed the following order:
Heard
learned advocate Mr.Juneja for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr.Shivang Shukla for the respondent.
The
matter requires consideration. Rule returnable on 25th
October 2010. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Shukla waives
service of process of Rule.
To
be listed in Admission Board for Final Hearing.
The
matter is listed on final hearing board today.
Learned
AGP Mr.Shukla filed further affidavit for and on behalf of respondent
no.2 Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar. Learned AGP invited
attention of the Court to the contents of paragraph 5 of the said
reply and submitted that the main ground which is sought to be made
out in the petition that, ‘the order of termination is passed only
with a view to see that an order passed by the Commissioner for
Handicapped persons dated 5th May 2006 is nullified’, is
not correct. Besides, learned AGP Mr.Shukla invited attention of the
Court to the fact that despite the fact that in the incident of 1999
the departmental inquiry was completed and the Inquiry Officer
submitted his report on 5th April 2000 but the same was
not concluded as no order was passed, in 2001 the petitioner was
again found indulging in the same activity of consuming liquor.
Beside this, he invited attention of the Court to the show-cause
notice issued by the department dated 24th October 2008, a
copy of which is produced at page-31 Annexure-D collectively wherein
in paragraph 3 the details set-out, which according to learned AGP
Mr.Shukla reflect the character of the petitioner. He submitted that
he is in a habit of remaining ‘unauthorizedly absent’ and there are
as many as 12 incidents of remaining ‘unauthorizedly absent’ and
total number of days of ‘leave without pay’ are 152.
Assuming
for the sake of argument that all these details which are set-out in
paragraph 3 of the show-cause notice are true, the same could not
have been included in the show-cause notice. Only on this short
ground, the show-cause notice stands vitiated and along with the
show-cause notice, order passed pursuant thereto on 17th
December 2008 is also vitiated and the same cannot be allowed to
operate.
In
the result, show-cause notice dated 24th
October 2008 is quashed. Similarly, order dated 17th
December 2008 is also quashed. But then with a view to see that the
authorities consider the case in accordance with law the matter is
remitted back to the authority. It will be open for the authorities
to issue fresh show-cause notice and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
Taking
into consideration the age of the matter, it is expected that the
competent authority will act expeditiously
in the matter.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
/moin
  Â
Top