STATE OF GUAJRAT Vs. ASHOKVAN LABHUVAN GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants herein ­ original defendant Nos.1 to 3 to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 18/08/2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gondal in Regular Civil Suit No.120 of 1998, by which, learned Trial Court has decreed the suit preferred by the respondent herein ­ original plaintiff and has quashed and set aside the termination order dated 30/11/1988 passed by appellant No.3 herein ­ original defendant No.3 terminating services of the original plaintiff and further directed the appellants herein ­ original defendants to reinstate the original plaintiff in services on his original post of Armed Police Constable with all consequential benefits i.e. backwages, seniority, etc. as well as to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 29/10/2004 passed by learned Extra Assistant Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2003, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein ­ original defendants and has confirmed the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit.

(2.) THAT the respondent herein - original plaintiff was appointed as Armed Police Constable on temporary basis on 14/09/1987. It appears that his services were required by the State as he was required to serve at Punjab for maintenance of the law against terrorism and he was required to leave for Punjab on 19/06/1988 and because of that, he proceeded on leave w.e.f. 18/06/1988 without getting the leave sanctioned and remained on leave for 11 days. It appears that his unauthorised absent from 18/06/1988 to 28/06/1988 came to be sanctioned as leave without pay vide order dated 13/07/1988. However, it is required to be noted that his leave was got sanctioned as special case for 20 days and he was required to resume his duty on 13/08/1988 at Ludhiyana, Punjab but still he neither resumed his duty nor submitted application for extension of leave and remained absent unauthorizedly and without getting his leave sanctioned. Therefore, it was found that his services are not required as he would not be good police officer and as he was appointed on temporary basis, his services came to be terminated vide order dated 30/11/1988. Considering Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, by giving one month notice pay.

(3.) MR.Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has relied upon following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in support of his prayer to dismiss the present second appeal :