RAJKOT DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. MANSUKHLAL DALICHAND MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and the decree passed by the Joint District Judge at Rajkot on 19/08/1978 in R. C. A. No. 83 of 1977. Thereby the learned Joint District Judge set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) at Rajkot on 25/02/1977 dismissing C. S. No. 895 of 1972.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised thus : The original respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court. He instituted the suit against the appellant herein. It would be desirable to refer to the parties to this appeal as they were arraigned before the trial Court, that is, the original respondent as the plaintiff and the appellant herein as the defendant. The plaintiff was appointed as a Vaidya sometime in 1952. On 1/04/1963, his services came to be allocated to the Panchayat service and he was designated as a Vaidkiya Adhikari and posted as such at Lakhdhirnagar in Taluka Morbi. His employer suspected him to have indulged into certain malpractices. He was therefore served with a chargesheet on 1 9/11/1970. It seems that one Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry proceedings with respect to the articles of charge served to the plaintiff. The Disciplinary Authority also appointed the Taluka Development before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceedings. The name of that Taluka Development Officer appears to be R. G. Mehta. His educational qualifications are stated to be M.A., LL.B. It appears that on 13th August, August, 1971 the plaintiff made an application in the enquiry proceedings for engagement of a legal practitioner to assist him in defending his case therein. By an order passed by the Enquiry Officer on 17/08/1971 such request made by the plaintiff for assistance of a legal practioner was turned down. The order of the Enquiry Officer in that regard is at Exh. 57 on the record of the trial Court. It appears that certain witnesses were examined in the enquiry proceedings. On the conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer appears to have found the plaintiff guilty of the charges levelled against him. He appears to have submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on 25/02/1972 to the plaintiff calling upon him to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be inflicted on him. The plaintiff appears to have caused his reply thereto on 13/03/1972. By the order passed on 26/06/1972 the Disciplinary Authority ordered removal of the plaintiff from service. The plaintiff thereupon served to the defendant the required statutory notice as provided in Sec. 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 before instituting R.C.S. No. 895 of 1972 on 16/09/1972. Thereby he challenged the legality and validity of the enquiry proceedings culminating into the order of his removal from service. The defendant filed its written statement and resisted the suit on various grounds. The matter appears to have been assigned to the 2nd Joint Civil Judg (J.D.) at Rajkot. He, after recording evidence and hearing the parties through their pleaders, by his judgment and the decree passed on 25/02/1977, dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred R.C.A. No. 83 of 1977 before the District Court at Rajkot. As aforesaid, his appeal came to be accepted by the judgment and the decree passed by the Joint District Judge of Rajkot on 19/08/1978 in R.C.A. No. 83 of 1977. The aggrieved defendant has thereupon preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(3.) As aforesaid, the trial Court dismissed the suit. It found that the enquiry proceedings were legal and valid and the order of punishment based on the enquiry proceedings was also perfectly legal and valid. The lower appellate Court however found that the enquiry proceedings culminating into the order of punishment were vitiated on the ground that the plaintiff's request for engagement of a legal practitioner for defending him in the enquiry proceedings was wrongly turned down. The learned Judge in appeal came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Enquiry Officer turning down the plaintiff's request for engagement of a legal practitioner for defending him in the enquiry proceedings was illegal on two grounds, namely, the Enquiry Officer was not competent to pass that order and that rejection of such request was not justifiable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The lower appellate Court thereupon came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was thus denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings with the result that the order of punishment passed on the basis of the enquiry report would not be sustainable in law.