KIRITKUMAR D VYAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Summary dismissal of a petition challenging the legality and validity of an order of dismissal from serviLe of a class IV employee Serving as a Nayak in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons after 15 years of service had led to this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as a Nayak in the office of the Inspector General of Prisons in the month of March 1961. On 12-5-1975 be was arrested in connection which a prohibition offence which ended in his conviction on 23-12-1975 He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 i.d S. I. for 20 days The Inspector General of Prisons by an order dated 25-2-1976 dismissed the appellant from service without holding any inquiry relying solely upon his conviction by the Magistrates Court and without even affording any opportunity to the appellant to have his say even regarding the quantum of punishment No show cause notice was issued before passing the said order of dismissal The appellant preferred an appeal albeit after the lapse of considerable time to the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which was numbered as Appeal No. 461/79 The said appeal was fixed for hearing on 5-11-79 and the Tribunal by a cryptic order dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-explanation of the delay which was occasioned in filing the said appeal. The petitioner thereafter in the month of December 1980 moved the High Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 3550/80 under Art 226 of the Constitution The learned Single Judge by an order dated 12-12-1980 rejected the said petition in limine on the ground that the appellant had approached the court after a delay of about 4 years from the date of original order of dismissal from service. The learned Judge however observed that the order of the High Court would not come in the way of the petitioner in making a representation to the Inspector General of Prisons for considering the appellants case on sympathetic grounds. The petitioner accordingly made a representation but it met the same fate and it was rejected on 28 1981. The appellant therefore being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) Mr. Rana the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant raised the following five contentions for our consideration: