L M MAKWANA Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a Judicial Officer in the subordinate judiciary of Gujarat is before us under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the final decision dated 4th/14th September 2009 of the High Court and the Notification dated 1st December 2009 of the State of Gujarat in Legal Department whereby he came to be dismissed from the service upon recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner has made the following prayers in the petition : - "(A) Quashing and setting aside the final decision dated 4/14.9.2009 of the High Court and the notification dt. 1.12.2009 of the State Government and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits including full back wages with 10% interest. (B) During the pendency and final disposal, the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. (C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper."

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was working as 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vadodara for the period from 10.6.1996 to 25.4.1997. One Advocate, Mr Vijay Majmudar made a complaint on 7th July 1997 against the petitioner. Pursuant to this complaint, a preliminary enquiry came to be conducted by the Special Officer (Vigilance) of the High Court and on completion of the enquiry, report dated 3rd May 2000 was submitted, which was placed before the High Court on 29th June 2000 and it was decided to hold regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner for imposing major penalty on the following charge : -

(3.) The memorandum of imputation was served on the petitioner and vide his statement of defence dated 31st July 2001, he denied the charges levelled against him and it was contended by the petitioner that Special Civil Suit in respect of which the complaint is made was never fixed on 27/28th March 1997 and that the Bench Clerk, Peon of the Court, who are the best available witnesses, were not examined during the preliminary enquiry and that except bare words of Mr Vijay Majmudar, there is no other independent witness and therefore it was ultimately urged by the petitioner that the charges may be dropped against him.