JITENDRA NAGARDAS PATEL Vs. YOGANAND SEVA SAMAJ TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions arising out of the same facts and issue are heard and decided analogously by this Common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner, who was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the respondent-College run by the respondent No. 3 trust, has challenged his termination from the service. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.09.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050- 4590/-. It is the case of the petitioner that after serving 4 years of services in the year 2006, when he went for leave since he met with an accident on 16.04.2016 and thereafter, when he tried to resume on 21.05.2006, the petitioner was not allowed to attend the duty. It is the case of the petitioner, thereafter, since he was not allowed to resume duty, he preferred the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006. By the order dated 09.10.2006, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent-Trust to allow the petitioner to resume the duties on 12.11.2006. Accordingly the petitioner resumed his duty on 12.11.2006 but thereafter, it is alleged by him that he was only allowed to work for three days and not allowed to enter into the College. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 09.10.2006 with a liberty to revive the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006. Pursuant to the note filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent-College did not allow him to resume the duty, the petition was revived, vide order dated 13.11.2006. After the revival of the aforesaid petition, the respondent College issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why he should not be removed from the services. The show cause notice was issued on 06.03.2008. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 13.03.2008 and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 17.03.2008, the petitioner was removed from the services. The aforesaid order dated 17.03.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7527 of 2008.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent College in total defiance of the earlier order passed by this Court did not allow the petitioner to resume the duty. He has submitted that he was only allowed for three days work and thereafter, he was not permitted to resume the duty.