- (1.)RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State. Learned Advocate Mr. M.P. Prajapati waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents No.2 and 3.
(2.)It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Talati cum Mantri by an order dtd. 12/11/1982 and joined the service on 18/11/1982. It is the case of the prosecution that a land bearing Survey No.781 and 786 admeasuring 3 acres was purchased from two individuals - Abuji Nathaji and Govaji Nathaji Thakore for a consideration of Rs.80,000.00 and the Sale Deed was executed on 14/8/1995. It is further alleged that a revenue entry was to be effected and therefore, the complainant approached the petitioner in the Gram Panchayat for 7/12 Extract. It is alleged that the petitioner made a demand of Rs.3,000.00. As the complainant did not want to pay the amount to the petitioner, he approached the ACB Office and a trap was arranged. A case being ACB Crime Register No.4/1997 was registered for the offices punishable under Ss. 7 , 13(1)(6) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was in total denial before the Trial Court and the Judge passed the judgment and award of conviction and sentence on 30/12/2003. The petitioner was ordered to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000.00. Thereby, the respondent No.2 passed an order on 13/9/2004, whereby the petitioner was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 30/12/2003, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.65/2004 before this Court and the Court vide order dtd. 23/11/2016 quashed and set aside the conviction order dtd. 30/12/2003. Thereby, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges under Ss. 7 , 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(3.)It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2 on 30/12/2016 and pointed out about the quashing and setting aside the order of conviction. It was requested by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 to revoke the order of removal from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to regular increment, leave encashment, provident fund, group insurance. However, till date no action has been taken on the representation made by the petitioner.