Gujarat High Court High Court

====================================== vs Mr Bipin I Mehta For on 26 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
====================================== vs Mr Bipin I Mehta For on 26 August, 2011
Author: D.H.Waghela, Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/12945/2000	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12945 of 2000
 

 
======================================
 

RAMRAJ
GULZARILAL 

 

Versus
 

COMMANDANT
AND ANOTHER
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR SAURABH J MEHTA for
Petitioner. 
MR BIPIN I MEHTA for Respondent Nos.1 - 2. 
MR VH
KANARA for Respondent Nos.1 - 2. 
MR PURVISH J MALKAN for
Respondent Nos.1 - 2. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 02/12/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

Learned
counsel, Mr.Mehta, submitted at the outset that the petitioner was
not in his touch and could not be contacted. He also conceded that
the report of disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner is not
available and has not been produced on record. Under the
circumstances, it was admittedly difficult for him to argue the case
of the petitioner for setting aside the order of his compulsory
retirement with effect from 31.5.1999, which order was subsequently
also confirmed by respondent no.2, Deputy Inspector General, Central
Industrial Security Force, Mumbai. There is no dispute about the
fact that the petitioner was charged with serious acts of misconduct
insofar as he was alleged to have failed in saving life of his own
colleague. Under the circumstances, only argument left with the
petitioner was that he was acquitted by the criminal Court in the
case based on same set of facts. That, however, does not derogate
from the findings, which may have been recorded in enquiry held
against the petitioner. Non-production of report of enquiry, in the
facts of the case, amounts to suppression of material fact.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.

(D.H.Waghela,
J.)

(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)

*malek

   

Top