VISHWANATH H VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an unarmed Head Constable in Banaskantha district around 1987. He also happened to be the Vice President of the Association of Head Constables of Banaskantha district. Pursuant to an agitation by the Police Department, a strike was proposed and apprehending a chaotic situation, the State Government passed certain orders mainly prosecuting some of the office bearers of various associations and taking departmental action.

(2.) By virtue of departmental action, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service along with several other police personnel. The petitioner challenged that dismissal from service before the Apex Court mainly on the ground that there was an erroneous exercise of powers under Article 311 of the Constitution of India by the Government, and without any departmental inquiry and without any opportunity of being heard, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service. While the petition was pending, as the time passed, new developments occurred and the Government decided to revoke and recall the orders of dismissal, subject to three conditions which were required to be accepted by the dismissed employee. The petitioner did not accept that proposal and was not ready to abide by those conditions. The conditions were - (i) the petitioner gives a written undertaking to withdraw any suit, case or Special Civil Application etc., if any, filed by him in any Court of law in connection with the impugned order of dismissal or against Government Department, (ii) on his reinstatement, he is posted to Panchmahals district and (iii) the period of absence from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement is treated as extraordinary leave for which no pay and allowances would be admissible. 2.1 The petitioner did not accept those conditions by writing a letter to the Government in clear terms expressing his decision not to abide by those conditions by communication dated 17.2.1990. 2.2 The proceedings proceeded further before the Apex Court and ultimately it was found that it is better that the petitioner's case is heard by the High Court of Gujarat in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the case, therefore, came to be transferred to this Court and registered as Special Civil Application No.1000 of 1997, which is the present petition.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner on 19.8.2008 addressed a communication to the Director General of Police showing his willingness to abide by the three conditions, which he had earlier refused to abide by, pursuant to communication dated 6.2.1990 from the DGP. It is worth to note that during the interregnum period, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in October 1997 and as per the say of the learned AGP, no decision is taken on the communication from the petitioner dated 19.8.2008 in view of the fact that the present petition is pending. The petitioner has been intimated about this by communication dated 12.3.2010.