STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARENDRA GULABBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants- original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court-learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavnagar dated 31/05/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 114/1993 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar dated 07/03/2001 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 111/2000 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants-original defendants confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit.

(2.) THE respondent-original plaintiff was serving as a Senior Clerk with the appellants-original defendants from 30/05/1984. At the relevant time, when the respondent-original plaintiff was terminated from service, he was serving at Veraval. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 01/06/1989 to 17/09/1989 and he reported for duty on 18/09/1989. Thereafter, again he remained unauthorisedly absent from 29/03/1990 and 10/01/1991. It appears that by various communications he was directed to resume duty however did not resume duty. It also appears that by communication dated 10/08/1990 he was also called upon to resume the duty and also to show cause why his services should not be put to an end in view of the circular dated 10/09/1989. Despite the above, the respondent-original plaintiff did not resume the duty. Not only that he also did not give any explanation and/or reply to the notice dated 10/08/1990. Again by various communications he was called upon to resume the duty and to explain his unauthorised absence failing which departmental proceedings were to be initiated. Despite the service of the above notice, neither he replied to the said notice nor he resumed the duty. Thereafter, he was served with the chargesheet/charge dated 14/11/1990 and by the same he was called upon to give the explanation. Though he was served with the aforesaid chargesheet/charge vide communication dated 14/11/1990 neither the respondent-original plaintiff resumed the duty nor gave any explanation and/or replied to the said chargesheet. Thereafter by an order dated 10/01/1991 the Executive Engineer, Rajkot passed an order to put an end to his service with effect from 28/03/1990. It appears that thereafter having served with the order dated 10/01/1991 the respondent-original plaintiff submitted the representation on 25/02/1991 submitting that as he was not keeping well and due to his sickness he could not resume the duty and remained absent and, therefore, he requested to permit him to resume the duty from 04/03/1991. His representation came to be turned down vide communication dated 14/03/1991. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10/01/1991 putting an end to his service on the ground of unauthorised long absence, the respondent-original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 114/1993 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavnagar mainly on the ground that before terminating his service no departmental inquiry has been held as per Bombay Civil Services Rules and also on the ground that the order of termination is too harsh looking to the misconduct alleged against him.

(3.) SHRI V.D. Parghi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff is consistently remaining absent. On number of occasions this Court has adjourned the matter only because of his absence and even when this Court lastly adjourned the matter on 04/07/2002 it was specifically observed that if on the next date of hearing the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent remained absent, irrespective of such sick note,leave note and/or non- availability of any of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter shall be proceeded further ex parte. Despite the above, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff has chosen to remain absent. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed further with the hearing of the present Second Appeal ex parte.