Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10819/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10819 of 2010
=========================================
S
A SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MS TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MS RUJUTA OZA
with MR RJ OZA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 01/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. After
arguing the petition at some length on various points, learned
counsel fairly conceded that the judgement of the Apex Court, in Dr.
Baljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana [AIR 1997 SC 2150] relied
upon by the respondent, was squarely applicable in the facts of the
present case, insofar as the petitioner proposed to retire during
pendency of serious criminal cases against him.
2. It
is categorically held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement
that:
“In
this case it is seen that when serious offences are pending trial, it
is open to the appropriate Government to decide whether or not the
delinquent should be permitted to retire voluntarily or such
disciplinary action as is available should be taken under the law.
Therefore, mere expiry of three months’ period of notice given, does
not automatically put an end to jural relationship of employer and
employee between Government and the delinquent official. Only on
acceptance by the employer of resignation or request for voluntary
retirement their jural relationship ceases. It would, therefore, be
of necessity that the Government takes appropriate decision whether
the delinquent would be permitted to retire voluntarily from service
pending the action against him. In this case since serious offences
are pending trial against him, the Government have rightly refused to
permit him to retire from service. The ratio in the above judgement
has no application to the fact situation and cannot be
applied/extended to all the situations. Each case should be
considered in its own backdrop of facts. Until the jural relations of
employer and employee comes to a close according to law, the employer
always has power to decide and pass appropriate order.”
3. Upon
the above observations being emphasized for the respondent by learned
counsel, Ms. Rujuta Oza, it was sought to be argued that this Court
was required to examine the issue in the backdrop of facts of the
present case. However, it was found that in the facts of the present
case there is undisputed fact of conviction of the petitioner for
serious offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 of IPC read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Therefore, the facts of the present case are not leading to any
conclusion on the basis of which the aforesaid judgement could be
distinguished.
4. Therefore,
impugned order dated 06.08.2010 of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad, in O.A. No. 102 of 2010 is upheld and the petition is
dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
[D.H.WAGHELA,
J.]
[J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.]
JYOTI
Top