Point of Law: Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent while dealing with the present appeal should bear in mind that a intra Court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior Court. The appeal inter se in a High Court from one Court to another is really an appeal from one Coordinate Bench to another Coordinate Bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court nor can even the Supreme Court issue writ to a High Court

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the Gujarat Housing Board (original respondent no.2 – herein after referred to as the ‘appellant-Board’) and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 04.05.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.4202 of 2014 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application filed by the original writ applicant (respondent no.1 herein) and thereby quashed and set aside the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 07.11.2011 along with the impugned order of punishment dated 21.08.2013 with a direction that the original writ applicant (respondent no.1 herein) be treated to be in service till the date of his retirement and he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits except the arrears of pay for the period from 22.08.2013 to 31.01.2014.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:

2.1 The respondent no.1 joined the service of the appellant- Board as the Additional Assistant Engineer on 17.08.1982. The respondent no.1 was assigned the additional charge of the post of Deputy Executive Engineer for a period between 14.10.2008 & 31.07.2009. The respondent no.1 was to retire from service on 31.01.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.

2.2 The respondent no.1, while holding the additional charge of the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, Housing Division, Gujarat Housing Board was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.01.2009 on the ground that there was some unauthorized occupation/construction in the housing colony constructed by the appellant-Board.

2.3 A show cause notice came to be issued by the appellant- Board dated 07.02.2009. The respondent no.1 submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, chargesheet was issued by the appellant-Board on 02.09.2009. In response to the departmental chargesheet, the respondent no.1 submitted his written submissions. The appellant-Board initiated inquiry against the respondent no.1 by appointing an Inquiry Officer. The inquiry officer on conclusion of the inquiry, submitted a report and found the respondent no.1 guilty of the charge alleged against him. The appellant-Board issued second show cause notice dated 19.11.2011. The respondent no.1 replied to the said show cause notice on 16.01.2012.

2.4 The appellant-board passed the impugned order of punishment dated 21.08.2013, whereby the respondent no.1 was ordered to be removed from the service. The respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed on 31.01.2014.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, the respondent no.1 preferred the Special Civil Application No.4202 of 2014 before this Court whereby the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.05.2017, allowed the writ application of the respondent no.1 and quashed and set aside the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 07.11.2011 along with the impugned order of punishment dated 21.08.2013.

2.6 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.05.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.4202 of 2014, the appellant – Board has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Y.N. Ravani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Board, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-original writ applicant and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.2-State of Gujarat.

4. Submissions on behalf of the appellant-Board :

4.1 Mr. Ravani, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.1 was in charge of the Vasantnagar Colony Project, Gota, Ahmedabad and was to take care of the interest of the appellant-Board qua the vacant property at the Vasantnagar Colony. It was submitted that a High Level Committee submitted a report dated 30.01.2009 pointing out several irregularities including unauthorized occupation