State of Gujarat Vs. Satishchandra Balashanker Vora - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....enquiry questioned - material which was not conveyed to petitioner and his explanation not called for had been taken into consideration while passing order of dismissal - foundation of order consist of various circumstances for which explanation of petitioner not called for - order of dismissal passed in violation of principles of natural justice - held, order of dismissal invalid. (ii) misconduct - employee under obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during time of which he is required to be at work - no one can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remain absent without leave - it constitute violation of discipline - person who remained absent liable to establish that his absence was justified. - - desai submitted that the court has come to conclusion that the act of the petitioner amounts to a misconduct, but merely because some foreign material is taken into consideration, the dismissal order, according to the state, is not vitiated, and, therefore, the state would like to approach the higher forum.order:after the pronouncement of the judgment, on behalf of the state, mr. p.g. desai, learned government pleader requested the court to direct the parties to maintain statusquo. mr. mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly objected to it. mr. desai submitted that the court has come to conclusion that the act of the petitioner amounts to a misconduct, but merely because some foreign material is taken into consideration, the dismissal order, according to the state, is not vitiated, and, therefore, the state would like to approach the higher forum. it is required to be noted that if the cause would have been breach of trust or misappropriation of funds belonging to public exchequer, this court would have taken a serious view of the matter, but in the instant case, the misconduct is of leaving the country without permission of the chancellor and political clearance. we are of the view that as the state has not taken care to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, the state has no case. therefore, this request must be rejected.

Judgment:

ORDER

:

After the pronouncement of the judgment, on behalf of the State, Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Government Pleader requested the Court to direct the parties to maintain statusquo. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly objected to it. Mr. Desai submitted that the Court has come to conclusion that the act of the petitioner amounts to a misconduct, but merely because some foreign material is taken into consideration, the dismissal order, according to the State, is not vitiated, and, therefore, the State would like to approach the higher forum. It is required to be noted that if the cause would have been breach of trust or misappropriation of funds belonging to public exchequer, this Court would have taken a serious view of the matter, but in the instant case, the misconduct is of leaving the country without permission of the Chancellor and political clearance. We are of the view that as the State has not taken care to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, the State has no case. Therefore, this request must be rejected.