Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1969Guj260
N.K. Vakil, J. 1. The only point involved in this second appeal is whether reasonable opportunity to be given to a Government Servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution in a Departmental Inquiry includes a right of personal hearing at the stage of appeal.2. The respondent had joined the Police Department on 18th of April 1945 and, at the relevant date, he was working as a Police Head Constable. He was charged with criminal trespass into the compound of the P. S. I. Dohad (Rural) on the night between the 25th and 26th of November 1959. Thereafter a preliminary inquiry was held and subsequently a departmental inquiry was held as a result of which the plaintiff was dismissed from service by the Order of the D.S.P. dated 22nd of July 1960. The respondent then filed an appeal before the D.I.G. and it is the case of the respondent that he had requested the D.I.G, to give a personal hearing to him but that request was rejected by the D.I.G. and the appeal was dismissed on the 31st of De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)0GLR167; (1968)ILLJ160Guj
Sarela, J.1. All these five second appeals raise some common questions of law and have been argued together and will, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment. In the course of the judgment we shall deal with the facts of each appeal separately. In all the appeals the respondent is the municipality of Patan (hereinafter referred to as the municipality). The municipality was the defendant in the five suits from which these five appeals arise. The plaintiffs in those five suits (who are the appellants in the five appeals) were the former employees of the municipality whose services were terminated by the municipality by resolutions of different dates to which we shall refer in due course. In each of those suits the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the resolution of the municipality terminating his services was illegal, void and of no effect and that it did not affect the continuance of his service and his service benefits and prayed for a perpetual injunction against the munici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)1GLR595
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 31/12/1990 dismissing the petitioner from services on the ground of defiance and disobeying the order of his superiors for performing internal securities at Bihar on 15/4/1989, on the ground that the impugned order is suffering from patent illegality and the same could not have been passed.2. Brief facts deserves to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy as under.The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in State Reserve Police Force in the year 1981. The petitioner was required to proceed to Bihar for discharging his duties in respect of internal securities in Bihar. The petitioner was informed by his superiors on 14/4/1989 that he and others will have to proceed for discharging their duties in Bihar as their terms of attachment had been over. The said orders were repeated in the morning parade of 7.00 'O' clock and the Rear Commander had ordered them to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2441
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner, who was Chief Minister in the State of Gujarat, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order made by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat on 17th April, 2000 in exercise of powers under Section 8(3) of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Brief Facts : The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 2397 of 1999, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the decision/approval dated 17th January, 1997 and/or 28th January, 1997, purported to have been given under Section 19(3) of the Act as well as the letter dated 15th March. 1999. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 2, the present Lokayukta has a bias against the petitioner, and therefore, the proceedings pending before the Lokayukta should not be allowed to continue. Learned single Judge on 9th July, 1999 admitted the petition and granted interim relief. Against the order passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1986Guj209; (1986)1GLR1
ORDER1-2. x x x x 3. The questions referred for consideration of the larger bench are whether the Labour Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are Courts and Courts subordinate to the High Court in terms of S. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and whether the Board of Nominees functioning under S. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as well as the Co-operative Tribunals constituted under the said Act are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions holding the field.11. Statutory provisions :- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of courts ~s per section 2 of the said Act. Civil contempt is defined by section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj244
1. The respondent, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit against the State of Bombay for a declaration that the order dismissing him from service as a Deputy Superintendent of Police was illegal, null and void and for consequential reliefs and also to recover Rs. 4300/- by way of arrears of salary etc., upto May, 1954. He also prayed for salary and other allowances upto the date of reinstatement and for other reliefs. The first Court granted a decree on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The plaintiff's suit was substantially decreed and almost all the reliefs were awarded. In first appeal, the District Judge, Jamnagar, confirmed this decree of the trial Court. In this second appeal it is urged by the State of Gujarat, which has taken the place of the State of Bombay who was the original defendant, that reasonable opportunity has been given. 2. In the course of the arguments various contentions have been ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4481
ORDERIt is ordered that the court shall hold an inquiry in accordance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences described in the complaint while postponing the proceedings/order against the accused persons. The complainant and his witnesses shall remain present on 10.2.1986 for inquiry.A number of documents were filed and the complainant was again examined on oath on 03.4.1986. The complainant produced contemporaneous record and the representations made to several authorities. In all, seven witnesses, including the doctor who treated the deceased, were examined and several relevant documents were produced and accepted in evidence. Remarkably, summons were issued to some of the petitioners themselves and, in reply to the notices issued for production of relevant police record, it was submitted in writing that the record being very important and confidential, it could not be produced in the court. 6. With the above backdrop of facts, the first argument of the learned Counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1985)1GLR473; (1986)ILLJ8Guj
1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is partly-in-person; has challenged the order dated 5th August, 1980 passed by the appellate authority reducing the penalty in departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner's two increments have been ordered to be withheld with future effect. In order to appreciate grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The petitioner is at present working as a probation officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 under the administrative supervision of respondent No. 2. He had joined the Department of Social Welfare (subsequently known as Social Defence Department) of the respondent-State in January 1983 and thereafter he has continued to work in the said department as a probation officer. During his tenure of service, he worked at different places in the State. The service history of the petitioner has a chequered career. It is not necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)1GLR86
B.C. Patel, J.1. RULE. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned advocate waives service of Rule for Respondent No.1.2. The State of Gujarat through its Chief Secretary to the Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 09th July, 1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.2397 of 1999, has preferred this appeal. Respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.1026 of 1998 challenging the appointment of Lokayukta and the said matter is pending before the Division Bench. The respondents received a notice dated 05th February, 1999 from the Registrar of the Lokayukta in Form No.'E'. Without going to the details suffice it to say that an application dated 25th February, 1999 was preferred before His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat under sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No.1 received the reply dated 09th March, 1999 from the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat stating that ' The State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2896; (1997)2GLR38
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. This is quite an extraordinary case depicting the story of 'Diya or Toofan' where the 'burning torch of the 'Rule of Law' to quite some large extent has been caught surrounded by the stormy cyclonic winds of gross misconduct, indiscipline and abuse of power demonstrating the 'Rule of utter Lawlessness' by some top Government officials dangerously, blowing across the public administration violating, nay rooting out the law at their sweet will, whims and caprice suiting to their selfish exigencies and expendiencies helping out the accused releasing them from the clutches of law !! Now, taking into consideration the startling fact that in some serious cases wherein after the sanction was granted, the corruption cases against some influential public servants came to be withdrawn at the instance of the Home Department in the name of State, leaves no manner of doubt that to the said extent the torch of 'Rule of Law' stands extinguished in the State of Gujarat!! This is simp...
Tag this Judgment!