AHMEDABAD DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. PRAHLAD A PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr Supehia learned counsel for the respondent waives service of Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) The petitioner was transferred from Viramgam to Dholera. It appears that the petitioner did not want to serve at the place of transfer. After joining Dholera on 1-11-1994, the respondent remained absent from 2-11-1994 and did not submit any leave report. It was thereafter only on 25-1-2001 that the respondent submitted the joining report which is at Annexure `A' to the petition. The respondent was not permitted to resume duty in view of such long unauthorised absence and the departmental inquiry has been initiated for terminating the respondent's services. The respondent went to the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and challenged the order issued by the DDO, Ahmedabad District Panchayat not permitting the respondent to resume duty. The said letter is permitted to be placed on the record at Annexure `F' to the petition. The Tribunal, however, construed it as an order terminating the respondent's services and quashed and set aside the said order with a direction to the petitioner- Panchayat to reinstate the respondent in service w.e.f. 25-1-2001 and to complete the departmental inquiry expeditiously.

(3.) Mr Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in construing the order in question as an order of termination. The order merely states that because the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period, he could not be permitted to resume the duty. It is submitted that the respondent had no right to resume duty and claim salary after such a long period of unauthorised absence without giving satisfactory explanation for the same.