Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/96720/2009 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 967 of 2009
=========================================
RASIKLAL
CHANDULAL TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
IM PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS. KRINA
CALLA ASSIT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 05/02/2009
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner who was at the relevant time serving as Stretcher Boy in
Civil Hospital, Nadiad has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction
and/ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
31.3.2008, by which the petitioner is removed from service.
A
departmental inquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner for
remaining unauthorized absent from duty since 1992 and he had taken
liquor on duty. As the criminal case was pending against the
petitioner with respect to offence punishable under Prohibition Act
and there was a gross delay in concluding the trial, therefore, the
department proceeded with departmental inquiry subject to reviewing
the order considering the outcome of the trial for the offence under
Prohibition Act. After the departmental inquiry, charges levelled
against the petitioner with respect to remaining unauthorized absent
since 1992 till date also came to be proved and the Disciplinary
Authority by impugned order dated 30.3.2008 removed the petitioner
from service. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said order of
removal as such the petitioner has already preferred appeal before
the appropriate authority. Still, the petitioner has preferred the
present Special Civil Application challenging the very order of
removal for which the appeal is preferred and the learned advocate
for the petitioner has addressed the Court on merits challenging the
impugned order of removal from service.
Shri
Hemant Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
Inquiry Officer and Authority has erred in proceeded further with
the inquiry during the pendency of the Criminal proceedings against
the petitioner for the offence under Prohibition Act. It is
submitted that as such the petitioner came to be acquitted by the
learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2008 and the
petitioner came to be removed on 31.3.2008. So far as the charges
against the petitioner that petitioner has remained unauthorized
absent since 1992 is concerned Shri Dave, learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that as such petitioner was not permitted
to resume duty and in fact even petitioner was on duty on 31.7.1992,
1.8.1992 and 2.08.1992 as averred in para 7 in the petition.
Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil
Application.
Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the
impugned order, it appears that petitioner is dismissed from the
service after holding departmental inquiry for misconduct of
remaining unauthorized absent since 1992. It is true that petitioner
is also dismissed from the service for misconduct of taking liquor
on duty. Considering the fact that petitioner was unauthorizedly
absent since 1992, in the facts and circumstance of the case, it
cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
Authority has committed any error and/or illegality in proceeding
further with the inquiry. Even otherwise, as the charge against the
petitioner for remaining unauthorized absent from 1992 has been
proved and considering the fact that petitioner was serving in
Hospital such a indiscipline in the hospital cannot be tolerated.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order
passed by the authority is so arbitrary and/ or illegal which calls
for interference of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of
the case and looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner,
the petitioner who was serving as Stretcher Boy in Civil Hospital
and looking to the alleged misconduct petitioner cannot be continued
in the hospital. It will not be in the interest of the patients and
public at large to continue the petitioner in service. Hence, there
is no substance in the present petition and deserve to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH,J.)
kaushik
Top