HASMUKHLAL M KOTHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Registrar of the respondent no.2 Council on 24.05.1968 and he was confirmed in service in the year 1969. On 18.08.1983, the petitioner came to be suspended by the Director, Indian Medicine and Homeopathic System, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, on 16.05.1984, respondent no.2 Council withdrew the order of suspension. Special Civil Application No.2862/84 was preferred wherein this Court restrained the petitioner from functioning as the Registrar of respondent no.2 Council. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 Council appointed one Shri N.K. Upadhyay as Registrar vide order dated 19.04.1985. Thereafter, Special Civil Application No.2862/84 came to be withdrawn in the year 1993. The petitioner was asked to resume the duty as Registrar and it is the say of the petitioner that has functioned as Registrar from 03.04.1993 to 08.04.1993. But subsequently on 08.04.1993, respondent no.1 cancelled the order dated 03.04.1993, whereby the petitioner had resumed the duty. On 07.04.1993, respondent no.2 passed an order dropping and cancelling all inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. However, since on 08.04.1993 the order passed in favour of the petitioner permitting him to resume the duty was cancelled, he preferred Special Civil Application No.4072/93 before this Court and the said Special Civil Application was admitted and when it came up for final hearing on 14.05.2009, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the departmental proceedings are concluded vide order dated 21.08.1998 and since the petitioner came to know about the said order for the first time, he expressed desire to challenge the said order of imposition of punishment by separate proceedings. Under the circumstances, the following order was passed by this Court on 14.05.2009 -

(2.) It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court challenging the order dated 21.08.1998 and the subsequent orders based on the said order.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Patel for the petitioner, Ms. Thakker, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr.K.I.Patel for respondent no.2.