LAWS(GJH)-1995-1-55

ARVIND DAHYABHAI ADHYARU Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH

Decided On January 18, 1995
ARVIND DAHYABHAI ADHYARU Appellant
V/S
District Panchayat Junagadh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case reveal that the petitioner has approached this Court in the third successive inning in the matter of his dismissal from the service on the basis of the allegation of procuring the employment by producing a forged marksheet and it is also revealed that it was not a single and isolated case of the petitioner, but there are about 410 such cases. There were also many other cases of this nature in which the marks have been inflated in the original marksheets by interpolation and on that basis, the employment was procured. The petitioner herein was appointed on 22nd August 1986 as a Primary teacher on the basis of the selection which was held subsequent to the advertisement issued in the year 1985. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, on 13th May 1993, the orders were passed by the respondent District Panchayat and District Primary Education Officer, Junagadh, removing the primary teachers at mass-scale and as many as ,410 such primary teachers were dismissed/ terminated. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that, in certain cases, appeals were preferred against such orders, but the present petitioner did not prefer any appeal and he straightway filed Special Civil Application before this Court. Special Civil Application No. 6889 of 1993 came to be decided on 30th September 1993 and in that decision, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, the respondent-authorities were directed to continue the petitioners in service as if no orders had been passed against them. The operative part of this order is reproduced as under :

(2.) The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without holding any inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1961. He has particularly invited my attention to the procedure for imposing major penalties as provided in Rule 7 and has argued that, according to sub-Rule (5) of Rule 7, the person against whom inquiry is to be held, is to be permitted inspection of the records and take extracts from such records as may be specified for the purpose of preparing his defence. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, no oral inquiry whatsoever was held in the case at hand and no opportunity was given to the petitioner in the matter of producing the documents and witnesses although he had asked for a personal hearing in the reply to the show-cause notice and according to the learned Counsel, the request for personal hearing includes the request for oral hearing also, and accordingly, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the impugned order is passed in utter disregard to the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalties and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In respect of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Patna High Court reported in 1976(1) SLR 313 in the case of Mohammad Sarfuddin v. State of Bihar and Ors.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Popat appearing for the respondents has submitted in the first instance that, the respondents have acted in conformity with the directions as issued by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner himself, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 6889 of 1993, in which, the Court had categorically directed the issuance of the show-cause notice to the petitioner and in that order, it was also directed that after the issuance of the show-cause notice, the petitioners will reply to such notices and they will also be at liberty to produce evidence, documents and/or material, if any, and after considering the. reply and the evidence and material produced by the petitioners, the respondent authorities will pass appropriate orders according to law. It has been argued by learned Counsel Mr. Popat that, admittedly, the show-cause notice had been issued and after the show-cause notice had been served, it was open for the petitioner to act as per the directions contained in the order dated 30th September 1993. If the petitioner failed to avail this opportunity which was available to him under the orders passed earlier in his own cause, he has to thank himself. It is argued that the petitioner did not make any such request in his reply to the show cause notice and all that was contended by him was that, during the pendency of the criminal case, the inquiry cannot be proceeded with and that he should be given the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner did not produce any list of witnesses or any list of documents and in this view of the matter, the grievance with regard to the violation of the Rules is wholly misconceived. Learned Counsel Mr. Popat has invited my attention to several decisions rendered by this Court in certain matters of identical nature and he has referred to the decision in Special Civil Application No. 8612 of 1994 rendered on 25th November 1994, and it has been submitted that, similar decisions have been rendered on the same date in other matters also. It was also given out that against this decision rendered on 25th November 1994, Letters Patent Appeals were also preferred and the appeals have also been dismissed. A reference was made to Letters Patent Appeal No. 710 of 1994 in Special Civil Application No. 8609 of 1994 decided on 22nd December 1994. It is pointed out that in the decision dated 22nd December 1994, the Division Bench has dismissed Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 709 to 711 of 1994.