M L MAKWANA Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even Homer nods is the moral of this petition challenging an order passed by the Administrative side of the High Court. If a person is asked by an appellate authority to support a reasoned judgment passed in his favour without being told one word about what is wrong with it can he effectively defend himself ? Can he avail of the opportunity meaningfully ? The point is brought home by this petitioner who has been removed from service from his post of Clerk in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Khambhalia by way of a disciplinary measure inasmuch as on admitted facts it is manifest that principles of natural justice have been violated by the administrative side of the High Court in passing the impugned order.

(2.) In connection with an incident relating to delivery of muddamal articles to the accused persons in criminal case a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner who was at the material time employed as a Junior Clerk in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Khambhalia. Chargesheet as per Annexure A dated October 6 1976 was served on him. The Inquiry Officer by his reasoned order on an appreciation of evidence of the witnesses who were examined at the enquiry exonerated the petitioner as per order at Annexure D dated January 31 1977 The report of the Inquiry Officer came up for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge of Jamnagar in his capacity as the disciplinary authority. He concurred with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer that the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Presenting Officer was unreliable and confirmed the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner was entitled to be exonerated. More than an year thereafter. on September 27 1978 the High Court on its administrative side issued a show cause notice as per Annexure D dated September 27 1978 and called upon the petitioner to show cause why the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority exonerating him in respect of the charges levelled against him should not be set aside and why the petitioner should not be removed from service as in the opinion of the administrative side of the High Court the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was not just having regard to the circumstances of the case. The petitioner made a written representation. The administrative side of the High Court was of the opinion that personal hearing was not necessary but even so the petitioner would be heard personal if he wanted to be heard. Ultimately the petitioner did not remain present on the appointed day and the High Court on its administrative side by the impugned order as per Annexure E dated March 12 1979 removed the petitioner from service. It is this order which has been challenged by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner on the following three grounds :-

(3.) Inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the laid ground it is not necessary to examine the validity or otherwise of the first two submissions urged on behalf of the petitioner.