SHOBHANABEN S RATHOD Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a councillor of Savarkundla Municipality. By the impugned order, she is removed as councillor on the ground that, she has incurred disqualification for being continued as councillor, and, accordingly, the proceedings under Section 38 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 were initiated. The Collector passed the order under Section 38 of the said Act, which was confirmed by the Director of Municipalities in appeal. The said order of the Director of Municipalities is impugned in the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as councillor on 20.1.2000. The son of the petitioner, viz., Vipul Rathod was serving in Savarkundla Municipality as Class-IV employee as Sweeper. It is not in dispute that, at the time when the petitioner was elected as councillor, her son was already in employment of Savarkundla Municipality on the aforesaid post. The show cause notice dated 20.4.2002 was issued to the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has favoured her son for the purpose of getting promotion from Sweeper to Surveyor and, accordingly, she has incurred disqualification under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner gave reply to the said show cause notice denying the charges levelled against her. The Collector, Amreli, thereafter, by his order dated 8.7.2002 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has incurred disqualification for being continued as councillor under section 38 of the Act. The Collector came to the conclusion that the son of the petitioner got promotion as Surveyor and was also given the benefit of three increments. The Collector also came to the conclusion that the petitioner helped the earlier President Smt.Muktaben K.Virani at the time when the said President was facing No Confidence Motion and by that, she has got the benefit of procuring the order in favour of her son. The said promotion order was cancelled by the Chief Officer on 8.12.2000 and at the subsequent stage also, the petitioner helped the said President - Ms.Virani by not remaining present again at the time of discussion of No Confidence Motion, and, again the said President obliged the petitioner by giving promotion order in favour of the son of the petitioner. The Collector, accordingly, found that the petitioner has directly or indirectly played the role for getting the benefit of promotion in favour of her son. The said order of the Collector dated 8.7.2002 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the appeal. The said appeal was disposed of by the Director of Municipalities, who by his order dated 12.8.2002 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Collector. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Director of Municipalities, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this petition, it is argued by Mr.Ravani, learned advocate, for the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as councillor on 20.1.2000, while her son was already in employment since 1998. It is submitted that, the son of the petitioner is residing separately since long and at the time when so-called promotion order was issued in favour of her son by the then President, he was already residing separately. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the ration card to substantiate her say that her son was residing separately at the relevant time, which is at Annexure-C/1 and C/2. It is submitted that, the petitioner has not played any role, in any manner, in the matter of promotion order, which was passed by the President. It is also submitted that, initially, the Chief Officer also recommended such promotion and the signatory to the said promotion order is the then President and absence of the petitioner at the time of passing of No Confidence Motion against the President can never be said to be a valid ground for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has played any role in the matter of promotion of her son. It is submitted that the petitioner is not concerned, whether her son is entitled to the promotion or not. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not played any role worth the name and that this is not the way by which the elected representative can be removed in such a casual manner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification as contemplated by Section 38 of the Act, and, the order in question is required to be set aside.