KHODUBHA HARISING GOHEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of this petition has a chequered career inasmuch as it has passed through many vicissitudes. The petitioner joined the services on or about January 29 1955 in the Workshop of the Electrical Department at Morbi of the Western Railways. He was promoted as Electrical Fitter somewhere in 195 and was working at the relevant time at Bhavnagarpara where the Western Railways have got Divisional Head quarters. It appears that on January 8 1973 respondent No.2 who happened to be the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner chargesheeted the petitioner for the offence of misconduct inasmuch as he assaulted a woman worker in the canteen attached to the said Workshop as well as insubordination and absconding from duty without leave and after regular inquiry was held he was served with a penalty notice on January 8 1973 to show cause why he should not be removed from the service. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on January 18 1973 which did not impress the Competent Authority who by his order of March 1 1978 removed the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved with this order of removal the petitioner went in appeal before the then Assistant Chief Electrical Engineer who happened to be the Appellate Authority but with no avail and his appeal was dismissed by the order of March 30 1973

(2.) The petitioner therefore after serving the statutory notice as required under sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Bhavnagar being Special Civil Suit No. 41 of 1974 for various reliefs including quashing and setting aside the impugned order and for reinstatement with all back wages. It appears that the impugned order was challenged on various grounds but at the time of hearing before the learned Civil Judge the petitioner restricted his challenge to the impugned order only on one ground namely the order being not a speaking order. This contention found favour with the learned Civil Judge who by his order of April 21 1975 set aside the impugned order and granted the following reliefs:-

(3.) The misery of the petitioner did not end with this order of the Civil Court because though the petitioner was paid all the back wages for which he was out of service pursuant to the order of removal it is his grievance that he was not reinstated and posted as required by the order of the Civil Court but by an order of September 19 1975 respondent No. 2 suspended the petitioner with retrospective effect from March 7 1473 It is not clear why and for what justifying reasons the suspension order was made effective from a particular date viz . March 7 1973 It appears that the petitioner filed his objections to this suspension order by a written memorandum. However a fresh show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 2 on March 15 1976 as to why penalty of removal should not be imposed on the petitioner. On April 3 1976 the petitioner filed his reply stating in details the grounds on which in his submission the removal order should not be made. No personal hearing was given to the petitioner and again by the present order of April 29 1976 the second respondent removed the petitioner from the service on the same ground of misconduct and insubordination. The petitioner therefore again carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 3 who by his order of September 389 1976 made a formal order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It is this order which is the subject matter of this petition before me.