Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Akil Kureshi
Dipendra Keshavlal Mehta - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
S.C.A. 17078 of 2004
Decided On : 04/04/2005
Water Supply and Sewage Board – Petition are that the petitioner, who is employed as a Chief Engineer by the respondent No. 2 gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board was placed under suspension by an order dated 27-8-2003. In the suspension order, it is stated that the petitioner while working as the Chief Engineer had caused serious loss to the Board by accepting PVC pipes of inferior quality. Court was, therefore, alleged to have failed to discharge his duties due diligence. On the basis of these allegations with found a prima facie case against the petitioner, was ordered to be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending departmental inquiry. petitioner has narrated briefly his defence in the petition and contended that he had not committed any misconduct. With the defence of the petitioner, court are, however, not directly concerned in the present petition. 3. 2 suspension of the petitioner has been resorted to by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 5 (1) of the gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1971 no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is governed by the said Rules and his suspension has been resorted to in exercise of powers under Rule 5 (1) of the said Rules –Held, It was observed that it is the cardinal principle of construction of statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the Court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy In the present case, as noted above, Court find no ambiguity in the plain language used in the legislature in the amended provisions of Rule 5 (1) (a) of the said rules as amended by the amending rules of therefore, not possible to adopt any other construction then which I have recorded hereinabove. 12. 4 Second reason for. rejecting the contention of the learned AGP is that though by virtue of the operation of law, continued suspension of the petitioner stands invalidated, nothing has been pointed out to the Court by either side that in a given case, it is not open for the Government to take into consideration the facts of the case and pass a fresh order of suspension, if situation so warrants. however, that such a situation is not arising in the present case, it is not necessary for me to pass any conclusive observations in this regard –Petition is required to be allowed.
( 1 ) RULE. Learned AGP, Mr. Hasurkar, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Mehul rathod, learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no. 2. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition was heard for final disposal today itself.
( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of continuing him under suspension and has also prayed for a direction for issuing a posting order to him and for being paid salary and allowances for the period during which he was placed under suspension without authority of law.
( 3 ) SHORT facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner, who is employed as a Chief Engineer (Vigilance and enforcement) by the respondent No. 2 gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Board") was placed under suspension by an order dated 27-8-2003. In the suspension order, it is stated that the petitioner while working as the Chief Engineer (Materials) had caused serious loss to the Board by accepting PVC pipes of inferior quality. He was, therefore, alleged to have failed to discharge his duties due diligence. On the basis of these allegations with found a prima facie case against the petitioner, was ordered to be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending departmental inquiry. 3. 1 The petitioner has narrated briefly his defence in the petition and contended that he had not committed any misconduct. With the defence of the petitioner, we are, however, not directly concerned in the present petition. 3. 2 The suspension of the petitioner has been resorted to by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 5 (1) of the gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and, appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules" ). There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is governed by the said Rules and his suspension has been resorted to in exercise of powers under Rule 5 (1) of the said Rules. Rule 5 (1) of the-said Rules as it stood at the relevant time reads as under :"5. Suspension :- (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered by Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension : (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial ; provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority subordinate to or lower in rank than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made,"3. 3 Sub-rule 5 (1) of the said rules was amended by the State Government by issuing a notification dated 20th September, 2004, by framing amendment rules called gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) (1st Amendment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the amending Rules of 2004" ). By the said amending rules, certain amendments were made in Clause (a) of Sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 of the said Rules. The entire amending Rules of 2004 need to be noted at this stage. These rules read as follows :"1. (1) These rules may be called the gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) (First Amendment) Rules, 2004. (2) They shall come into force on the expiry of ninety days from the date of their publication in the official Gazette. 2. In the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, in rule 5, in Sub-Rule (1) for clause (a), the following shall be substituted, namely:- " (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or pending : provided that, where a Government servant against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated is suspended, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.