PRABHATPARI KARANPARI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Prabhatpari Karanpari Goswami
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
N V Anjaria, J. -
(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondents.
(2.) By filing this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12.03.2012 passed by respondent No.2 treating the period of absence of petitioner from 11.05.2010 to 31.01.2012, that is, from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as extraordinary leave, as confirmed by order dated 25.06.2013 by the Director General & I.G.P., Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, further direction to the respondents is prayed for to treat this period as on duty for all purposes.
(3.) The petitioner herein has been serving as unarmed head constable presently at Jungadh District. Pursuant to chargesheet dated 03.03.2009, a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner. The charges were that bottles of English liquor were found from the petitioner's residence. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 10.05.2010. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authorityInspector General of Police. In the said order of dismissal itself, it was provided that in the event of decision in the criminal case against the petitioner which was pending, the penalty of dismissal could be reviewed. It appears that the petitioner was prosecuted in the criminal court also for the same allegations and charges. The competent court at Porbandar acquitted the petitioner of the offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act. After the disposal of the criminal case, the second respondent by order dated 27.01.2012 reviewed the dismissal order and reinstated the petitioner in service. Thereupon, the petitioner resumed duty from 01.02.2012.
3.1 Though the petitioner was reinstated as above, the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement was treated by the authority. By order dated 12.03.2012, the second respondent treated the period of absence of the petitioner during the aforesaid gap, that is from 11.05.2010 to 31.01.2012 as an extraordinary leave. The petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed. The revision was also dismissed by the Director General & I.G.P. on 25.06.2013.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.