SURESHBHAI KANJIBHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for following prayers:-

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Assistant Head Constable, Traffic Department, Vadodara. The petitioner is the regular appointee and was in service since 11/12/1989 in the Traffic Department, and in this period, the petitioner has never been issued any notice. He submits that on 3/10/2011, when the petitioner was on duty, he suffered with server pain and therefore, he had gone for medical treatment. The petitioner was diagnosed with stone in his stomach and thereafter, the petitioner remained under medical treatment till 2/1/2012, i.e. for 92 days. On 02/1/2012, the petitioner resumed his duty with all medical certificates and vide letter dtd. 02/1/2012, the petitioner requested to the higher officer to put the petitioner back on duty, with all medical certificates and appropriate applications.

(3.) As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that by order dtd. 02/9/2016, at Annexure-L to the petition, the decision with reference to retiring the petitioner in view of the certificate issued by Medical Board Jamnabai General Hospital declaring unfit for duty, has been taken and upheld considering various rules, especially the Rules 64 and 58. It is submitted that the service record of the petitioner has been very poor and as many as 9 small and big disciplinary penalties have been issued, which is clearly reflected from the services record. Therefore, the claim raised by the petitioner with regard to regularization of 92 days leave on medial ground from 3/10/2011 to 02/1/2012, is not justified. Two appeals were preferred by the petitioner on 22/10/2012 and 30/4/2013, after a delay of five months and 9 months respectively. However, in view of the Court's direction the same was decided and in fact, the petitioner was called upon with details to carry out formality with reference to fixation of pension. However, the petitioner has never cared to remain present. Therefore, considering all rules including Rule 64, Rule 37, Rule 58, Rule 55, Rule 35, the grievance raised by the petitioner is not justified and the impugned order is just and proper.