Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
B.P.JOSHI - Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
S.C.A. 1250 of 1992
Decided On : 07/18/2003
It is also a settled principle of law that the review power of the judiciary under Art. 226 is not to be exercised for the purpose of substituting the view taken by the domestic Tribunal. The extra-ordinary, plenary, prerogative and equitable writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 has to be exercised to see as to whether, in a case like the one on hand, the decision of the Tribunal was a decision in extra-ordinary circumstances. If this question is answered in the positive, obviously and decisively the quality and quantum of the evidence cannot be treated as a factor, a factum to be re-examined and reappreciated. As a matter of fact, the review Court, more so in a case of writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an Appellate Court. Their main anxiety is to see as to whether in reaching the conclusion or in forming the opinion by the management in a domestic enquiry, any extraneous or undesirable facet or factor has influenced which would vitiate the entire decision making process. After having tested the conclusion recorded by the management in terminating the services of the petitioner on the proof of not only the delinquency or misconduct, but also on the proof of irregurarities and a conduct unbecoming of a Clerk, and that too after affording an opportunity of being heard and following the principles of audi alteram partem the opinion was formed. Obviously, therefore, the review Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, exercising extra-ordinary plenary, equitable and discretionary powers for doing effective and efficient justice, cannot be used as an implement where justice is done by the domestic Tribunal itself on the evidence, and that too after following the necessary principles of natural justice.
[Para 10]
(b) Service and Employment - Termination - Validity - Entire chronology the catalogue of events and the evidence before the Enquiry Officer followed by the report and examination by management with objectivity and impartiality, the only action which must follow was termination of petitioner services - There is no illegality in the impugned order and the Court having found no reason to interfere rejected the petition.
This Court has no hesitation in finding that the entire chronology, the catalogue of events and the evidence before the Enquiry Officer followed by his report and examination by the management with objectivity and impartiality, the only inevitable action which must follow has, as such followed. It is in these circumstances that this Court is left with no alternative but to reject the submissions. The impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be, even for a moment, said to be unjust, illegal or in any way vulnerable.
[Para 10]
( 1 ) A short, but substantial question which has surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution revolves round, as to whether the petitioner was terminated from his employment with respondent Gujarat Electricity Board without affording him an opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice?
( 2 ) WITH a view to appreciating the short question which calls for adjudication, a skeleton projection of the facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be highlighted.
( 3 ) THE petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Clerk, in Vidyut Board Vidyalaya, at Baroda, in the year 1986. He came to be served with a show cause notice dated 3. 5. 1990, wherein it has been alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was rude and insulting with the colleagues, superiors and the parents of the students and that the petitioner has not improved his behaviour inspite of oral and written warning in that regard. It is in the context of those allegations that the respondent Board Authority desired to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a prelude to that, served the petitioner with a show cause notice. It will be also necessary to mention that in the said show cause notice other allegations were made against the petitioner, namely (i) that he is irregular in attending the school; (ii) that he is doing over-writing in the muster-roll; (iii) that the work assigned to the petitioner was not completed; and (iv) that though the petitioner was not supposed to have any monetary transaction, he had accepted amount of fees from the parents and that the same amount was deposited lately in the Bank account of the school.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that before he could be given an opportunity of hearing and reply, he was shocked to know that the Chairman - Principal of the Vidyut Board Vidyalaya of the respondent No. 1 Board, issued an order dated 21. 6. 1995, by which petitioner was placed under suspension.
( 5 ) THE story goes further that the show cause notice was followed by a suspension order, and further followed by a charge-sheet in respect of the alleged misconduct and misdemeanours of the petitioner. It is the averment of the petitioner that upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner had, by writing a letter, demanded xerox copies of the statements of the parents recorded by the management and also bringing to the notice of the management that he was not keeping in good health. Despite that the management supplied only some copies of the documents to the petitioner, but not all copies as requested by writing reminders.
( 6 ) THE enquiry officer came to be appointed by the management and the petitioner was informed by the Principal of the school vide his letter dated 27. 8. 1990 regarding the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Ofcourse the petitioner had written a letter dated 8. 9. 1990 to the Principal informing that intimation about holding the hearing of enquiry ought to have been given by the Enquiry Officer. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, without the presence of the petitioner though invited, though demanded, though requested, a report came to be submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Management, holding petitioner delinquent guilty and stating that the allegations against the petitioner were held proved. The enquiry report dated 1. 2. 1991 was also served upon the petitioner.
( 7 ) THE management, upon consideration of the enquiry report and other facts and circumstances of the case, and after evaluation thereof, accepted the report of enquiry and found that the allegations made against the petitioner are successfully transfixed. It is in this context that the petitioners service came to be terminated.
( 8 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner Mr. Vora has strenuously and repeatedly urged before this Court that the impugned order of the management terminating the services of the petitioner i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
