STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHETAN JAYANTILAL RAJGOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader assisted by Shri D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State appellant in both the appeals, Shri Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gaurav Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Jit Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1597 of 2019.

(2.) Both these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise out of the judgment dated 8.5.2019 and 7.5.2019 delivered by the learned Single Judge in respective petitions. But, since common question of law and facts, in substance, has arisen, upon request of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are taken up for hearing and disposed off by the present common order.

(3.) So far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 is concerned, it arises out of a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.5.2019 in Special Civil Application No.4439 of 2017. Background facts are that the original petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 herein, was appointed on 22.4.2015 as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Class-III), on a sanctioned post through Gujarat Public Service Commission. However, the appointment was made for a period of 5 years on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 17.5.2013 at a monthly fixed salary of Rs.10,000/-. The appointment was subject to the outcome of a litigation pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned in the appointment order itself dated 17.5.2013. While the respondent No.1- original petitioner was on duty on 10.6.2014 from 8.00 to 10.30 p.m. at Amirgadh Check Post, a First Information Report, being C.R. No.3/2014 came to be lodged against respondent No.1 of this appeal alleging that when he went for a small nap for about two hours in the restroom, which is about 200 meters away from the check-post by assigning his work to others, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) executed a decoy trap on the weigh-bridge of Amirgadh check post. In the said trap, the officer of ACB recovered Rs.39,460/- from one file lying on the Computer Operator's table, whereas an amount of Rs.5,56,105/- came to be recovered from one Mensi Muljibhai Ahir. According to original petitioner, by presuming that this cash amount was related to the alleged corrupt practice, a case is falsely made out which resulted into initiation of proceedings against the respondent No.1 by issuing show cause notice dated 22.7.2014. The case of the respondent No.1- original petitioner is that as he was sleeping in the rest room, which is about 200 meters away from the check post, he was not responsible for the alleged recovery of amount. Respondent No.1 was originally served with the show cause notice and having not been satisfied with the explanation, the Commissioner of Transport concluded that the respondent No.1 has committed misconduct and accordingly, an order of termination came to be passed against him on 22.4.2015 as stipulated in the letter of appointment dated 17.5.2013, after granting an opportunity of hearing as per the terms of the appointment. The respondent No.1 was therefore constrained to challenge the said order by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the appeal came to be dismissed, vide order dated 4.6.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the State of Gujarat.