Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/847/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 847 of 2001
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2327 of 1989
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 848 of 2001
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2327 of 1989
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
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 ?
=========================================================
TK
RABARI - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
SHEEP AND WOOL DEV CORP LTD,THROUGH MD - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
S TRIPATHY for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR KUNAN NAIK FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 19/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. Both
these Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the judgment and order
dated 12.06.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.2327/1989.
2.
The appellant herein was removed from service by the
respondent-Corporation by order dated 15.12.1986, which was
challenged by way of filing the captioned writ petition. The learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant,
original petitioner, mainly on the ground that the impugned order of
removal from service was passed without giving adequate opportunity
to the appellant to defend his case and accordingly, the appellant
was ordered to be reinstated in service. The impugned order of
removal was not a simpliciter order of termination but, it was passed
on the ground of alleged misconduct on the part of the appellant. The
impugned order was not passed on the ground of unsatisfactory work on
the part of the appellant. In such circumstance, it was incumbent
upon the respondent-Corporation to hold regular departmental inquiry
and the appellant was required to be given adequate opportunity to
defend his case. However, the same was not provided and therefore,
the learned Single Judge rightly held the impugned order of removal
from service to be illegal and bad in law.
3. However,
since the appellant was found to be negligent in performing the
duties, by remaining absent unauthorizedly, no back-wages was
awarded. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge has rightly ordered reinstatement of the
appellant in service without any back-wages. We are in complete
agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
hence, find no reasons to entertain both these appeals.
4. In
view of the above, both the appeals are rejected.
[V.M.
SAHAI, J.]
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top