LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1474

PRESEDENT Vs. GHEMARBHAI SEDHABHAI CHAUDHARY

Decided On October 22, 2021
Presedent Appellant
V/S
Ghemarbhai Sedhabhai Chaudhary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition emanates from the order dtd. 28/2/2017 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal ") in Appeal No.173 of 2014 (old Application No.36 of 2010), wherein and whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioner-Trust to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service by quashing and setting aside his dismissal order dtd. 10/4/2010 and the order passed by the Commissioner of Higher Education dtd. 5/4/2010.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocates Mr.Rasesh Rindani with Mr.J.K.Parmar appearing for the petitioners have submitted that a show cause notice dtd. 11/10/2008 was issued to the respondent No.1 containing four charges. A committee was constituted under the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Education Regulations, 1974 (the Regulations) for inquiring into the charges. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was also represented by one Mr.Revabhai Jesangbhai Chaudhary as his defence representative and the petitioner(s) had also participated in the same. After hearing them, the impugned order of dismissal was passed. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Rindani that after following due legal procedure, the inquiry Committee held all the charges proved against the respondent No.1 and accordingly, he was dismissed from service. Learned advocate, while referring to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order on irrelevant grounds. It is submitted that the legality of the inquiry proceedings has been questioned by the Tribunal on incorrect assessment of facts. It is submitted that the observations made by the Tribunal with regard to inquiry proceedings undertaken by the Committee are erroneous. While referring to the rojkam of the inquiry Committee, it is submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error by observing that there is no signature put on the rojkam by any of the members of the Committee, whereas in fact the rojkam reveals that the same bears the signatures of the members of the Committee as well as representative of the respondent No.1. It is submitted that in fact when an opportunity was given to the respondent No.1 to submit anything more, over and above his statement, he did not avail such opportunity.