PRAVEENBHAI BALABHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Rashesh Rindani on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr.Rashesh Rindani would submit that while the petitioner had been appointed as a driver with the respondent Department vide an order dtd. 16/4/2012 and whereas the same was initially for a period of 11 months and thereafter the same was extended for approximately for 16 years. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would further submit that unfortunately on account of the fact that the petitioner was arrayed in the list of accused in a criminal complaint being C.R. No.I-91/2016 filed before the Talod Police Station, vide order dtd. 30/7/2016 services of the petitioner came to be terminated. Learned Advocate would further submit that perusal of the order would reveal that the authority, while passing the said order, was conscious of the fact that only a FIR had been filed yet, according to the authority concerned, since the name of the petitioner was mentioned as an accused, the same has brought disrepute to the Department and for such reason, the service of the petitioner was terminated. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the final report under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, whereby the name of the petitioner has not been sent for trial, more particularly the Investigating Authority having filed B-Summary Report. It further appears that vide order dtd. 20.1.2018, learned Magistrate has approved the said B-Summary Report in case of the present petitioner. Learned Advocate would submit that since B-Summary Report envisages that the petitioner had been falsely roped in as accused, he had immediately made representation to the respondent Authorities to reinstate him in service, yet no action appears to have been taken thereupon. Learned Advocate would further submit that at this stage, if the respondent Authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of the fact that the Investigating Officer has filed B-Summary Report, which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate, the grievance of the petitioner may not survive at this stage. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would also draw the attention of this Court to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.17112 of 2014 and prays that similar benefits may also be granted to the present petitioner.

(3.) Such request is not opposed by the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Authorities.