Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
KS JHAVERI, A.G.URAIZEE, JJ.
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MEENABEN WD/O.DHARMENDRAGIRI SWAMI & 1 - Respondent(s)
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 17 of 2014 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 of 2013
Decided on : 12/01/2015
MR RAKESH PATEL, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1 -3
MR NK MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with Tribunal orders and sympathetic consideration by authorities in employment disputes.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Employment Dispute - [Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 2001, Section 8] - The court discussed the Tribunal's order modifying the punishment of compulsory retirement to reduction of pay-scale and the direction for reinstatement. The court highlighted the lack of sensitivity and disregard for the Tribunal's order by the authorities, emphasizing the need for compliance and sympathetic consideration. The legal provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 2001, Section 8 were central to the court's decision in upholding the order for reinstatement and non-payment of back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's husband, an employee, received a charge-sheet for alleged misconduct, leading to compulsory retirement. The Tribunal modified the punishment to reduction of pay-scale and directed reinstatement. The authorities failed to comply, leading to a writ petition by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lack of sensitivity and disregard for the Tribunal's order by the authorities justified the learned Single Judge's decision to pass the impugned order. The court also noted that the employee had already expired, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Non-compliance with the Tribunal's order, lack of sensitivity and disregard for the legal process by the authorities, and the employee's demise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with the Tribunal's order and sympathetic consideration by the authorities, especially in cases involving employee rights and legal process.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge within a month.
KS JHAVERI, J.
1. The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1141 of 2013 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent.
2. The respondent’s husband was working as Craft Instructor Motor Mechanic in the office of appellant no.2. The deceased husband of the respondent received charge-sheet on 22.05.2002 for alleged misconduct of dereliction in duty. The charge-sheet culminated into inquiry and punishment order of compulsory retirement on 29.09.2003. The deceased husband of the respondent preferred appeal being Appeal No.379 of 2003 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.09.2003. The Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal on 29.11.2004, modified the punishment of compulsory retirement with that of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay-scale for a period of 5 years and he was ordered to be reinstated in service expeditiously. The Tribunal further observed that he would not be entitled for back wages for the period since the impugned order of 29.09.2003. However, the authorities were directed to regularize the intervening period as leave admissible to him or as extraordinary leave as per relevant rules.
2.1 The Tribunal's order dated 29.11.2004 was carried into challenge by preferring SCA No.11572 of 2005 before this Court. This Court considering the fact that the husband of respondent had expired by then directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent sympathetically. However, when the matter was not considered by the appellants, the respondent filed the present petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and therefore the appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered that even the Tribunal vide modifying the order of punishment of compulsory retirement into reduction of pay-scale have clearly recorded to the effect that all the charges levelled against the husband of the respondent are proved, however, only on sympathetic ground and to give another chance to improve the punishment was reduced. He submitted that when the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition.
4. Mr. Khamborja, learned advocate appearing for Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge was well within jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and therefore the same does not call for any interference by this court. He submitted that even otherwise the employee has already expired.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge in paras 10 to 12 observed as under:
“10. This Court is at pain to record that the entire approach on the part of all the concerned betrays lack of sensitivity, tendency and propensity to avoid the legitimate claim on whatever pretext easily available without it being legal or otherwise and compelling citizens like petitioner to approach the Court which otherwise would have been absolutely avoided and proper respite would have been available to the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal is not in any manner modified, changed, altered or whittled down or watered down by this Court and the challenge to it contain in writ petition being SCA No.11572 of 2005 has resulted into disposal of the petition with or rather direction to the authorities to
consider the entire issue with due sympathy. Unfortunate it is that the concerned and responsible for taking decision have evinced scant disregard to rule of law or rather lack of understanding or rather deliberate show off with a view to avoid the payment liability, treated the matter
