Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1005/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1005 of 2010
======================================
RAJENDRABHAI
SAKANBHAI VAGHRI
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MS PAURAMI B SHETH for
Petitioner.
None for
Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 30/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 besides Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution to challenge order dated 12.5.2009 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,in OA/354/2008
whereby the petitioner’s application was dismissed and whereby
termination of provisional appointment of the petitioner by order
dated 3.11.2008 was upheld. It is clear from elaborate impugned
order that the petitioner had clearly supplied wrong information and
certified such information to be correct and complete, which
information about the past criminal record turned out to be false.
Therefore, the provisional appointment of the petitioner on the post
of Extra Departmental Packer was liable to be terminated and it was
terminated by the order which did not contain any adverse remark or
stigma.
2. Under
the above circumstances, argument of learned counsel, Ms.Paurami
Sheth that the petitioner was required to be given an opportunity of
being heard, inspite of the admitted facts about supply of incorrect
information, could not be accepted because no prejudice could be
shown to have been caused to the petitioner. Learned counsel also
submitted that the case of the petitioner could have been considered
for some lesser punishment or at least for the clarification that the
petitioner would remain eligible for employment under the State or
the respondent in future. The impugned order of the Tribunal of
competent jurisdiction cannot be called into question under writ
jurisdiction of this Court for such purpose. Therefore, the petition
is summarily dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
*malek
Top