STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. IBRAHIM ABDUL DAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of original defendants, against whom the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit no. 164/1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) challenging the order dated 29/7/1982 of his removal from service passed by appellant no. 2.

(2.) IT was the case of the respondent in the suit that he was appointed in the year 1979 on the post of Arms Police Constable, that he was issued warning for being late on duty and given punishment to complete seven days drills on one days' but on that day he did not remain present and could not comply with the instruction to complete the drills. He was, therefore, issued show cause notice and was made to understand that if he admitted that he had deliberately not obeyed the instruction of his superior officer to complete the drills, he would be imposed trivial/minor punishment. He admitted that he had not performed extra drills because president of union of Police Department had instructed him not to do such a drills. That on the basis of such admission on his part, appellant no. 2 straight way passed an order of his removal from service without any further opportunity to explain circumstances under which he admitted the guilt. That such order of removal from service was in breach of principles of natural justice and in violation of constitutional provisions of Article 14, 16, 311(1)(2). That, therefore, the order of removal from the service was required to be held as void, unconstitutional and in the breach of principles of natural justice and such order was required to be quashed and set aside and he was required to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THE main issues framed by learned Trial Judge are as under: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that order dated 29/7/1982 removing him from the service was illegal and in breach of principles of natural justice? (2)Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff voluntarily confessed the charge levelled against him in departmental inquiry?