VIJAY J GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-3-25
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 28,1988

VIJAY J.GADHVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

N. D. PATEL AND COMPANY V. MANUBHAI KARSANBHAI PARMAR AND ANR. [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

JAYANTILAL MANILAL SHAH VS. CHANDRAKANT SHANKARLAL PADHIYAR [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
LARSON AND TOUBRO LTD VS. INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAR SHARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT VS. UKAKANT SHRIVASTVA [LAWS(GJH)-2001-4-44] [REFERRED]
SHASHIKANT SOMABHAI PATEL THRO POA INDULAL S AMIN VS. UMESHBHAI BABULAL SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2008-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT VS. UKAKANT SHRIVASTVA [LAWS(GJH)-2001-3-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)There is material suppression and deliberate distortion of facts. Even when this is found as a matter of fact and the explanation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner leads to no other inference but to deliberate distortion of facts and intentional suppression of relevant and important material would it be proper for the High Court to ignore and/or to condone the same ? Or is it incumbent upon the High Court to discharge its duty and pass an order which may appear to be unpleasant to the petitioner to the petitioners Advocates and perhaps to many others? In short there are two alternatives: Pragmatism leading to the glamorous goal of popularity. Or Devotion to duty coupled with allegiance to the oath of office.
(2.)The petitioner is serving as English Section Writer in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. Visavadar district Junagadh. He was appointed on 28/11/1983 He alleged in the petition that his services have been terminated with effect from 4/05/1986 Intimation to this effect has been given to him by order dated 12/05/1986 It is contended in the petition that similarly situated employees are continued and therefore the order is not justified. In paras 4 and 6 of the petition the allegations have been made to the following effect:
"The petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have followed the well settled principles of natural justice especially when the respondents are discharging the function of rendering justice to the society. That the order is arbitrary illegal. unjustified and in violation of the provisions of Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
In para 6 of the petition the same allegation is reiterated by stating that:
"The respondents who are discharging the functions of advancement of cause of justice themselves have passed the impugned order without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice."
It is further submitted that the petitioner is discharging his duties over a period of about 22 years continuously and therefore he has acquired quasi-permanent status and his services could not have been put an end to in the manner alleged.
(3.)The aforesaid allegations if true would and should shock the conscience of any judicial officer. Naturally therefore at the initial stage itself when the matter came up for preliminary hearing this Court issued notice and granted interim relief directing that the petitioner be permitted to discharge his duties and draw the salary as if the impugned order of termination is not passed at all. The aforesaid order of ad-interim relief was passed on 14/05/1986 Till now under the protection of the order of the Court the petitioner has continued in service.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.