Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, JJ.
Sanjaybhai Kanjibhai Teraiya – Appellant
Versus
Saurashtra University – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 674 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5883 of 2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
Decided on : 04-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR RAJENDRA PATEL
For the Respondent: MR ANAND B GOGIA, MS KAJAL L KALWANI
The appellate authority's pending decision and the pendency of departmental proceedings justified the refusal of interim relief.
Headnote:
Interim Relief - Disciplinary Inquiry - University Act - [Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Special Civil Application No. 5883 of 2023] - The court dismissed the appeal against the refusal to grant interim relief in favor of the petitioner, citing that the appellate authority would decide on the appeal and departmental proceedings were pending. The court found that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in refusing the interim relief, as the petitioner's appeal was pending before the appellate authority and the respondent had provided adequate opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the refusal to grant interim relief in a disciplinary inquiry initiated by the respondent university based on a report by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). The appellant had also filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to grant interim relief by the learned Single Judge was justified, as the appellate authority would decide on the appeal and departmental proceedings were pending. The court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the civil application.
Issues: Refusal of interim relief, pending appeal before the appellate authority, and pending departmental proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of interim relief was justified as the appellate authority would decide on the appeal and departmental proceedings were pending. The court also noted that the respondent had provided adequate opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the civil application was disposed of.
ORDER :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.04.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5883 of 2023, whereby, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant any interim relief in favour of the present appellant - original petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also observed that let reply be filed by respondent No.1-University before the next date of hearing.
2. Heard Mr.Rajendra Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr.Anand Gogia, learned advocate with Ms.Kajal Kalwani, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. Mr.Rajendra Patel, learned advocate for the appellant at the outset, has referred to the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the main petition at page 55 to 60 of the compilation. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that respondent No.5 herein i.e. Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) has submitted a report against the petitioner on the basis of which, now respondent No.4 without any authority of law initiated the disciplinary inquiry simply relying upon the report submitted by the ICC. It is also submitted that the witnesses in the report of ICC as well as in the memo of charges issued to the petitioner are the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the report submitted by the ICC and the said appeal is still pending, and therefore, it is not proper for the concerned respondent authority to proceed with the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that though the aforesaid important aspect was pointed out to the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge has not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, and therefore the present appeal is filed.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 to 4 after taking instructions, submitted that the hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the report submitted by ICC is kept on 11.5.2023 and after considering the submission and material, the appellate authority will take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the departmental proceedings are kept on 27.05.2023. It is also pointed out that even if the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed by the appellate authority, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. It is urged that there is serious allegation levelled against the petitioner, and therefore, at this stage, departmental inquiry may not be stayed as prayed for by the petitioner and more particularly when the petition filed by the petitioner is kept on 27.06.2023 by the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this appeal may not be entertained.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on the record, it emerges that the appellant petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby any interim relief has not been granted in favour of the petitioner. We have also perused the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the main petition.
6. If the decision which will taken by the appellate authority is against the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision in accordance with law before the higher forum. Sufficient time is between the hearing of the appeal as well as the departmental proceedings, and therefore, when the main petition is still pending before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge is yet to examine the merits of the case of the petitioner.
7. It is pertinent to note that one of the prayers made in the petition is that the respondent appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner during the course of hearing of this Appeal. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 has spe
