SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Guj) 85

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.K.Keshote
KAUSHIK T.PATEL - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - Respondent
S.C.A. 10915 of 1995
Decided On : 02/20/1996

Advocates Appeared: KAMAL TRIVEDI, SEJAL MANDALIA, Y.N.OZA

Headnote:

Gujarat Water Resources development Corporation Ltd Employees (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Petitioner challenging by this writ petition order of Managing Director of Corporation placing him suspension as per Rule of Gujarat Water Resources development Corporation Ltd – Employees petitioner has been placed suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated - Petitioner filed challenging the said order of transfer was disposed of by Division Bench - Order of division Bench reads is clarified that interim order of status quo does not go beyond original order of status quo granted by single Judge and does not prevent applicant Corporation from taking any departmental action are not directing that any action be taken only clarify interim order – Held, Court cannot interfere with the truth or correctness of the charges even in a proceedings against final order it is understandable how can that be done by Tribunal at stage of framing of charges - In this case Tribunal has held that charges are not sustainable not on basis of articles of charges and statement of imputations but mainly on basis of material produced by respondent before it as shall presently indicate - Advancing this contention attempts that this Court should go into correctness or truth of allegations charges which are there against petitioner - Court in case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry Tribunal or Court can interfere only on charges framed no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or charges framed are contrary to any law - At this stage Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into correctness or truth of charges - The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority - Truth or otherwise of charges is a matter for disciplinary authority to go into Indeed even after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings if matter comes to Court or Tribunal they have no jurisdiction to look into truth of charges or into correctness of findings recorded by disciplinary authority or appellate authority as case may - Petition dismissed(Para 9)

S. K. KESHOTE, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein, Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Gujarat Water resources Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the Corporation), challenging by this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the order No. 5 of 1995 dated 16-12-1995 of the Managing Director of the Corporation placing him under suspension as per Rule 5 of the Gujarat Water Resources development Corporation Ltd. Employees (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1964) with immediate effect. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been placed under suspension as a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated. In this order it is mentioned "hence, it is decided to initiate departmental inquiry" and from these words it is clearly borne out that the suspension of the petitioner is ordered in exercise of the power as conferred under rule 5 of the Rules, 1984 by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of this writ petition, need to be briefly stated.

( 3 ) ON repatriation of Shri V. V. Pandya, S. E. (Mech.), the petitioner on 13-7-1995 was given the additional charge of this post. Having apprehension of withdrawal of additional charge of the said post, the petitioner on 14-7-1995 filed special Civil Application No. 5772 of 1995 before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. On same day this Court protected the petitioner by granting interim relief to maintain status quo with regard to handing over of the charge of the post of S. E. (Mech. ). On 15-7-1995 the petitioner was served with order of the Corporation dated 14-7-1995 transferring him from Ahmedabad to deesa. Immediately on receipt of the order dated 14-7-1995 the petitioner filed C. A. No. 1453 of 1995 challenging the said order of the transfer. On 17-7-1995 this court suspended the implementation and further operation of the order of the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner filed L. P. A. No. 944 of 1995 as interim relief order on 28-9-1995 could not be extended. In L. P. A. the Corporation filed c. A. No. 2970 of 1995 for vacation of the interim relief. This C. A. No. 2970 of 1995 was disposed of by the Division Bench on 6-12-1995. The order of division Bench reads,-"it is clarified that the interim order of status quo does not go beyond the original order of status quo granted by the learned single Judge and does not prevent the applicant-Corporation from taking any departmental action. We are not directing that any such action be taken. We only clarify the interim order. "on same day the petitioner has also withdrawn L. P. A.

( 4 ) ON 11-12-1995 the Special Civil Application No. 5772 of 1995 has come up for hearing before this Court. Both the respondents therein, i. e. , the State of gujarat and the Corporation gave out that the post of S. E. (Mech.), which fell vacant on repatriation of Shri V. V. Pandya to be filled in by promotion and the corporation will fill the post by promotion within reasonable time. On these statements made by the respondents the petitioner has withdrawn the Special Civil application No. 5772 of 1995. The petitioner joined at Deesa on 15-12-1995. The corporation placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 16-12-1995. This order of the suspension dated 16-12-1995 is challenged on the grounds,- (i) That in the previous proceedings, Special Civil Application No. 5772 of 1995, decided on 11-12-1995 it was not stated by either of the respondents that d. E. or suspension of the petitioner is contemplated. The State Government and the Corporation have made a show before this Court in the previous proceeding as if the case of the petitioner will be considered for promotion to the post of S. E. (Mech.), whereas the ulterior motives on the part of the respondents were to the effect the moment the Spl. Civil Application No. 5772 of 1995 is disposed of, the petitione











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top