PRAVINCHANDRA F SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order of dismissal from service Annexure "O" to the petition, dt. January 21, 1989, passed against him by Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Matar -respondent no.2 herein ( "Committee" for short), as also an order passed by the Director of Agricultural Produce Market (Rural Finance), Gandhinagar -respondent no.1 herein on June 23, 1989 Annexure 'Q' to the petition being ultra vires, null, void, and unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, as if the order had never been passed against him by granting all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that on 1st October, 1964, he was appointed as Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Matar. He had served the Market Committee with utmost satisfaction for several years. Suddently, on 22nd September, 1984, the petitioner was suspended by making false allegations against him that he had misappropriated funds of market committee. A complaint was filed against him which was registered as Criminal Case No.244 of 1986 for the offences punishable under Sections 408-411 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Matar. A chargesheet was submitted. The petitioner pleaded guilty and by a judgment and order dt. 17th October, 1989, he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate for the above offences. No substantive sentence, however, was imposed on him and he was granted benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said order.

(3.) According to the petitioner, as no substantive sentence was imposed on him and he was granted benefit of probation, no action could have been taken against him so far as his services were concerned, and he was required to be reinstated. Accordingly, in November, 1986, the petitioner made an application to the Market Committee to reinstate him in service as all the proceedings against him were over. The matter was taken on Agenda and the case of the petitioner was considered in the Meeting of the Committee. It was alleged by the petitioner that instead of reinstating the petitioner in service, a resolution was passed by the Market Committee resolving that as the petitioner was prosecuted in a competent Criminal Court for temporary misappropriation of certain amounts of the Market Committee and as he pleaded guilty and convicted by the court, it would be proper to terminate services of the petitioner with effect from 16th February, 1987.