DAGRA BHIL MUKESH HARJIBHAI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Peon in the year 1994 in response to the public advertisement published by the Collector, Surendranagar. The petitioner was ultimately selected for the said post and he was accordingly appointed by order dated 19.5.1995. However, within a period of one month, his services were terminated on the ground that, he was appointed only for the election work and that since the election work is over, he should not attend the work thereafter. It is the say of the petitioner that, thereafter, from the very select list, candidates who are juniors to the petitioner have been appointed to the post of peon. Initially, the petitioner had challenged the said action by way of filing Special Civil Application No.9990 of 2000 and this court disposed of the said writ petition on 13.11.2000 giving liberty to make a representation to the Collector, Surendranagar. While disposing of the said petition, liberty was also reserved to challenge the decision of the Collector, if the same was found to have been against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner again made a representation on 27.11.2000 after the aforesaid order of the High Court. However, the Collector, by his order dated 21.12.2000 informed the petitioner that since the petitioner did not comply with the certain instructions and was accordingly guilty of misconduct, he was relieved from service at the relevant time. The said order is produced at page 48 Annexure-P to the petition. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the said decision by way of filing this petition.

(2.) Mr.Gandhi strongly submitted that looking to the order at Annexure-P it is clear that the decision, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated was not bona fide decision, but it was passed by way of penalty. He submitted that, even otherwise, the grounds mentioned in the said order are not correct. He pointed out that no opportunity was given at the relevant time to the petitioner to satisfy the authority that the allegations made against him were baseless.

(3.) Considering the documentary evidence on record, it is clear that, after terminating the services of the petitioner, juniors to him were appointed and they continued in service, i.e. those who are juniors to the petitioner in the select list, and the only reason for terminating the services of the petitioner was the aforesaid so-called misconduct. In view of the alleged misconduct, his name was deleted from the select list, and therefore, he was not continued in service. In my view, this fact as such is not disputed. Ms.Devani, learned AGP, submitted that because of the aforesaid misconduct, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the select list and he was removed from service.