STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. R M CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants above named have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order dated 10.2.1994 recorded by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4597 of 1981 under which the Learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition of the respondent herein and quashed and set-aside the Orders at annexure 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the petition, which related to removal of the respondent from Government Service. The learned Single Judge also directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 50% back wages. The facts of the case may be, briefly stated, as follows :-

(2.) The respondent was working as P.S.I. in the State Traffic Branch, Surat, in the year 1973. According to the case of the department, the respondent remained absent from duty on 16.3.1973, and 17.3.1973 without obtaining any permission from competent authority. It was further alleged against him that he made a wrong statement to the Dy.S.P. that he was sick, and therefore, had approached Dr.Patel for his treatment. It was further alleged against him that he made another false wrong statements before Dy.S.P. that on his return from Doctor on 16.3.1973, he learnt from his wife that Dy.S.P. Shri Rana had gone to his residence and therefore he (the respondent), had gone to see Shri Rana and had explained to him the circumstances showing his absence. It was further alleged against the respondent that he had made wrong entries in his weekly diary that from 6.00 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. on 16.3.1973, he had checked vehicles and had done office work from 9.15 hours. It was further alleged against him that he also made false entries in the weekly diary that he had done office work from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 17.3.1973. On the aforesaid set of charges, chargesheet was issued to and served upon the respondent. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The enquiry officer submitted his report and thereafter the D.S.P. found that some addition was necessary, therefore he added his own summing up to the report of the enquiry officer and submitted the enquiry report and the summing up to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Baroda range at Baroda on 11.7.1977. The said authority undertook remaining process. The summing up and the enquiry report were supplied to the respondent and after hearing the respondent, the said authority found that the charges against the respondent were duly proved. Accordingly, the said authority passed an order of removal of the respondent from Government service. The appeal and the Revision Application filed by the respondent against the said order came to be dismissed.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of his removal from Service, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.4597 of 1981. The said order of removal of the respondent was challenged on various grounds. The learned Single Judge has observed in his judgment that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the respondent; that the D.S.P. had recorded his summing up behind the back of the respondent; that the D.I.G. had not assigned reasons for accepting the reasons and findings arrived at by the Presiding Officer and that there was delay in issuance of charge sheet. It was further observed that certain documents required by the respondent were not supplied to him. It was further observed that punishment of removal from service was very harsh.