Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. Supehia, J.
Surajsingh A. Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Surat Mahanagarpalika and Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 10060 of 2004
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Constitution of India - Article 226 – Misbehavior - Indiscipline and Dishonesty - Petitioner appointed as a Security Supervisor petitioner was appointed formerly in Army as a Sepoy - Petitioner was operated for the Structure Urethra at Military Hospital – whether enquiry was held by competent authority;(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; and (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion - In present case, all the three parameters are satisfied - Findings of the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence - Disciplinary proceedings are held in compliance of the natural justice since full opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend his case - Held, power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion." Neither in the writ petition nor in the submissions advanced before this Court, there is whisper with regard to violation of any rule or regulations governing the disciplinary proceedings - In fact the provisions regulating the disciplinary proceedings are not at all referred, hence in absence of any such averments or contention, it has to be presumed that the disciplinary proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the decision making process is apposite - With regard to the allegations of mala fide intention, no material is produced before the inquiry officer in this regard and this Court is also not apprised with any cogent and convincing material - In absence of such material, this Court, while exercising its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority and venture into an unchartered territory by undertaking its own fact finding inquiry for examining each and every finding of the Inquiry Officer - Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Supehia, J.
1. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the inquiry officer's report, order dated 28.05.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 12.12.2019 rejecting the appeal of petitioner.
FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS:
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Security Supervisor on 22.09.1997, in Watch and Ward Department of the Surat Mahanagarpalika. The petitioner was appointed formerly in the Army as a Sepoy on 27.02.1974. During the service, as Subedar, in the year 1991, the petitioner was operated for the Structure Urethra at Military Hospital, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and he was declared as unfit for Defence Security Corps (DSC).
2.1. The petitioner was served with the suspension order dated 03.07.2002 on the ground of misbehaviour, indiscipline and dishonesty and was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The said suspension letter states that the same has been issued on the basis of prior approval of the Commissioner on 02.07.2002. On 20.07.2002, a charge-sheet came to be served upon the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner (Special), wherein total 11 charges have been levelled for holding the departmental inquiry.
2.2. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet by the letter dated 26.07.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner had addressed representations and request letters dated 18.07.2002, 10.10.2002, 13.01.2003 and 18.02.2003 requesting to take the petitioner on duty revoking the suspension order and for completion of the inquiry.
2.3. On 30.01.2003, the respondent No. 2 issued an Office order appointing Shri Manharbhai D. Solanki as Inquiry Officer. On 14.02.2003, the Inquiry Officer had issued a notice intimating about his appointment as Inquiry Officer and fixed the hearing.
2.4. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3042 of 2003 for setting aside the suspension order dated 03.07.2002 and for completion of the inquiry expeditiously. The said petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn by an order dated 21.03.2003. In the said order it has been observed that "it will be open to the petitioner to move to the Inquiry Officer and/or to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the inquiry within the stipulated time of 6 months. If such application is made by the petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority and/or to the Inquiry Officer, as the case may be, same shall be given due consideration and the proceedings of the departmental inquiry shall be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of such application made by the petitioner."
2.5. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 24.11.2003 and a copy thereof was made available to the petitioner, whereby it has been stated that the charges No. 1 to 6, 8, 10 and 11 are proved, whereas the charges no. 7 and 9 are partly proved. A show-cause notice for the purpose of imposition of punishment came to be issued to the petitioner on 03.12.2003. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 03.12.2003, 10.12.2002 and 13.01.2004. Thereafter, the impugned order under challenge dated 28.05.2004 came to be passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
2.6. Since, the Appeal dated 21.06.2004 filed by the petitioner before the Standing Committee was pending, this Court vide interim order dated 20.09.2019 had directed the Municipal Corporation, to decide the same. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 12.12.2019, the same is also challenged by amending the prayer clause. No submissions are advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Patel to declare it as illegal.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel appearing for t
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
