PRABHAKAR GWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation in the present writ petition is primarily the order dated 01.04.2016 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was a member of the Lower Judicial Service in the State of Chhattisgarh. He was appointed as a Civil Judge Class-2 vide order dated 27.12.2005. The petitioner served the State of Chhattisgarh as Lower Judicial Officer from 2005 to April, 2016 and in between the petitioner had a checkered history of being issued with various show cause notices in respect of his conduct, particularly the language that the petitioner used while making correspondences with the higher authorities and his other acts of misconduct. Finally, in a meeting of the Full Court of the High Court of Chhattisgarh held on 29.03.2016 on the basis of a report submitted by the Registrar General in respect of a criminal complaint case for the offence under Sections 120B , 294 , 323 , 186 , 506 , 353 & 511 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the wife of the petitioner Smt. Pratibha Gwal before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against Shri Amit Dubey and 18 others, which included the then Chief Justice of the High Court and also another senior most judge of the High Court as an accused, it was resolved that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and dispensing the same invoking the provisions of Article 311(2-b) of the Constitution of India, it was recommended to the State Government to dismiss the petitioner from service in public interest. Accepting the said recommendation, the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 01.04.2016 dismissed the petitioner from service in public interest with immediate effect and the said order dated 01.04.2016 was communicated to the petitioner through the concerned District and Sessions Judge on 04.04.2016. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) The primary contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by an authority inferior to the appointing authority, hence the impugned order per se is illegal. The second ground of challenge was that the entire action of dismissal of the petitioner was with malafides and the petitioner has been victimized at the hands of some of the higher ranking officials in the State, so also in the police as well as some of the influential persons in the society and a few senor Judges of this High Court.