AMRUTLAL B PRAJAPATI Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was serving as an unarmed Police Constable under the Police Commissioner, Shahi Baug, Ahmedabad since 1978 was sent for training at the Police Training School, Vadodara. On the completion of the training, petitioner was to appear at an examination and the petitioner appeared in the said examination on 7.11.1979. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was appearing in the said examination, the Supervisor while taking a round, suddenly asked the petitioner as to why a piece of paper was lying near the Bench on which the petitioner was sitting. The petitioner took up the paper and handed over the same to the Supervisor. The Supervisor asked the petitioner as to whether the paper was in the hand writing of the petitioner, to which the petitioner denied. It is also the case of the petitioner that to the best of the petitioner's recollection, the paper was in the hand writing of the person sitting in front of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the said examination some other persons were also caught on the charge of cheating who were from Vadodara and Surat.

(2.) The petitioner has then put up his case to the effect that the petitioner was asked to sign some statements which the petitioner insisted on reading before signing, but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to read the same. When the petitioner requested that the petitioner be permitted to read the statement, the petitioner was abused and threatened with dire consequences.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner was sent back to Ahmedabad on the very same day for resuming duty at Ahmedabad. But on his return to Ahmedabad, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty inspite of repeated requests. The petitioner then made a representation to the Police Commissioner, respondent no.1 herein and also to the Honourable Home Minister, a copy of which is not produced along with the petition, but leave is sought to rely upon the same as and when it is produced. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order dated 7.7.1980, whereby the petitioner was discharged from service with retrospective effect from 7.11.1979. It is this order which is challenged in this petition. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or without giving any personal hearing or conducting any inquiry whatsoever into the allegations made against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an averment in the petition to the effect that three other persons from Vadodara and Surat who were caught cheating on the same day, i.e. 7.11.1989 were allowed to join duty. The petitioner has not furnished details of the same.