Back
1986 Supreme(Guj) 35
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN, S.B.MAJMUDAR
ATAM SUGNOMAL POHANI - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
L.P.A. 181 of 1978
Decided On : 02/28/1986
Headnote:
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 226 - Present appellant was not granted reinstatement in service with respondent No. 1-Board and also insofar as he was denied back wages even though the learned Single Judge granted a declaration in favour of the appellant that order terminating his service was void – Respondent Board has also filed cross objection against that part of the other of the learned Single Judge which grants the aforesaid declaration in favour of the appellant - Appellant continued to serve as a technical assistant till he was ultimately appointed and posted as Deputy Engineer on probation for two years by an order of the Superintending Engineer of respondent Board dated -Appellant worked as deputy engineer at different places in the service of respondent-Board- The appellant was then ultimately confirmed in post of deputy engineer (E. M.) while he was working at Palanpur sub-division with effect from - Relevant year for present purpose the appellant had come to be posted at Surat as deputy engineer - Pointed out that his mother aged about years was ailing on account of heart trouble and that facilities of medical care were not available at Ukai while they were available - On this ground he requested that the transfer order might be cancelled - He also sent a telegram on and another representation against his transfer - He also filed a suit in Court being Civil Suit No. against his transfer - It is in the background of this fact that impugned order discharging the services of the appellant came to be passed by respondent-Board - Impugned order is at annexure I to the petition - It is passed by the Chief Engineer which is the disciplinary authority so far as appellant is concerned –Held, Appellant was such a recalcitrant fellow that he be refused reinstatement as well as back wages and that he should be permitted to rest content with mere paper declaring that order of transfer was void - So far as his past conduct is concerned what learned Single Judge has stated is that he has got some false notions of assumed prerogatives or powers of public servants - Even if he had such false notions he could not have been punished with penalty of deprivation of reinstatement and whole of back wages - Court have already seen above that once the declaration about nullity of the impugned order is passed declaration regarding reinstatement with continuity of service would almost automatically - It is obvious that if appellant is flourishing a advocate he would never choose to once again become a servant of Board and give up his lucrative practice - It must be held agreeing with appellant that his existence at the bar as a struggling advocate cannot be said to have yielded him sufficient economic advantage by way of alternative occu- pation which can deprive him of back wages even for that period - However on a comprehensive view of the situation we think that the appellants conduct is not wholly blameles - He has also suffered from some false notions of rights and had also stuck to his guns in a most impractical and to in extent autocratic manner - Under these circumstances he cannot he granted full back wages - In fairness to appellant he made it clear that if 50% back wages are granted to him - He would be satisfied and gives gives up his claim for the rest of 50 back wages and that according to him would be sufficient punishment for is alleged misconduct or insubordination - In court view aforesaid stand taken by appellant deserves to be accepted - Order accordingly.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is taken out by the original petitioner (party-in-person) of Special Civil Application No. 1176 of 1974 inso- far as he is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this court (N. H Bhatt J ) whereunder the original petitioner the present appellant was not granted reinstatement in service with the respondent No. 1-Board and also insofar as he was denied back wages even though the learned Single Judge granted a declaration in favour of the appellant that the order terminating his service was void. The respon- dent-Board has also filed cross objection against that part of the other of the learned Single Judge which grants the aforesaid declaration in favour of the appellant.
( 2 ) FACTUAL backdrop :- The appellant at the relevant time was an employee of the respondent-Board. He joined the service of the respondent-Board as a technical assistant against the post of Deputy Engineer on 29-5-1963. The appellant is a D. M. E. of D. T. E. Gujarat State and a graduate in electrical engineering from the Gujarat Univer- sity. The appellant continued to serve as a technical assistant till he was ultimately appointed and posted as Deputy Engineer on probation for two years by an order of the Superintending Engineer of the respondent Board dated 30-7-1963. The appellant worked as deputy engineer at different places in the service of respondent-Board. The appellant was then ultimately confirmed in the post of deputy engineer (E. M.) while he was working at Palanpur sub-division with effect from 31 By 1974 which is the relevant year for the present purpose the appellant had come to be posted at Surat as deputy engineer. Where- after the appellant was transferred to Ukai sub-division by Superintending engineer of the respondent-Board by order dated 29-3-1974. He was posted at Ukai sub-station. The appellant was relieved pursuant to the said order from his duty with effect from 30-3-1974 to enable him to join at the place of his transfer. It appears that the appellant had nursed a grievance against the said transfer order. He therefore made a representation to the Additional Chief Engineer of the respondent Board for cancelling his transfer from Surat to Ukai. The pointed out that his mother aged about 70 years was ailing on account of heart trouble and that facilities of medical care were not available at Ukai while they were available at Surat. On this ground he requested that the transfer order might be cancelled. He also sent a telegram on 27 and another representation against his transfer on 9-5-1974. He also filed a suit in the Baroda Court being Civil Suit No. 765 of 1974 on 29-5-1974 against his transfer. It is in the background of this fact that the impugned order discharging the services of the appellant came to be passed by the respondent-Board. The impugned order is at annexure I to the petition. It is dated 27-5-1974. It is passed by the Chief Engineer (R. E.) which is the disciplinary authority so far as the appellant is concerned. The order recites that the appellant was ordered to resume his duties at Ukai but the registered post A. D. letter was returned by the postal authority with the remarks the party refuses to accept the R. P. A. D. letter and therefore returned to the sender. That the appellant was relieved from Surat with effect from 30-3-1974 and he lead not reported for duty at Ukai sub-station uptil then and thereby he had over-stayed unauthorisedly and hence it was ordered that the appellant is deemed to have been discharged from the service of the Board with effect from 31-3 1974 as per service regulation No. 113 The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of deemed discharge by filing Special Civil Application No. 1176 of 1974 in this court. Amongst others it was contended by the appellant that the said order was country to the principles of natural justice. That the procedure prescribed by the Board regulations for discharging an employee on the ground of alleged mi
