PRAVINSINH GOVINDBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dtd. 3/6/2019 and the appeal order dated 06/7/3/2023, rejecting the appeal challenging the suspension order. It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay the suspension allowance forthwith.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. K. P. Champaneri for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner, for the alleged misconduct was placed under suspension by an order dtd. 3/6/2019. Since the suspension order is an appealable order as provided under Agricultural Produce and Market Committee, Employees Service and Recruitment Rules ("the Rules for short"), the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order and the same was numbered as Appeal No. 22 of 2019. He submitted that under Rule 23 read with Rule 26 of the extant Rules, suspension is an appealable order. Under Rule 26, any order passed under Rule 23 is an appealable order. The petitioner was put under suspension under Rule 23. Referring to Rule 27, he submitted that under the said Rule the petitioner is entitled to get the suspension allowance for which during pendency of the Appeal No. 22 of 2019, he preferred interim application seeking suspension allowance. The Order dated 06/7/3/2023 was thereafter passed rejecting the Appeal on the ground that the order of suspension is not an appealable order. Consequently, no order was passed in the interim application seeking suspension allowance. Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri for the petitioner therefore submitted that the Order dated 06/7/3/2023 being contrary to the extant Rules, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, as per the Rules the petitioner is entitled to get suspension allowance which he has not been paid from the year 2019 till date and therefore the directions may be issued to the respondents to pay the same forthwith.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appeared for Respondent No.3 on caveat and submitted that pursuant to the misconduct of the petitioner, he was served with the chargesheet. The departmental proceedings were initiated and after following due procedure upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report. Against the report of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause dtd. 2/6/2023 came to be served upon the petitioner to which the petitioner replied and the further hearing is kept on 21/6/2023. Therefore, as the departmental proceedings are in progress, the prayer made by the petitioner is of no consequences.