KODARLAL KESHAVLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against an order of dismissal passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural) and confirmed by appellate as well as revisional authorities.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated : The petitioner was working in the Police force as Unarmed Head Constable. A criminal case was filed against him for certain offences punishable under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and he came to be convicted in Sessions Case No. 187 of 1980 by the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) for offences punishable under Sec. 331 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200.00 by a judgment and order dated 8/06/1981. The said conviction was confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the conviction, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 8/08/1983 and he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply and after considering it, the second respondent dismissed him from service by an order dated 27/02/1984, which was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gandhinagar by an order dated 3/02/1986 by the Director General of Police by an order dated 7/08/1987, and by the State Government by an order dated 3/01/1989. It is that final order which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) Mr. I. S. Supehia, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a number of contentions. He submitted that the notice Annexure 'A' as well as the impugned orders are contrary to law inasmuch as in the show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to show cause against removal from service, whereas an order of dismissal was passed against him. Mr. Supehia contended that though it was stated in the show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service, the said expression preceded by expression "fbe" and, therefore, even though the petitioner was asked to show cause against "fbe-zembem" in substance and in reality, the notice was for "removal" and not for "dismissal". An action of dismissal from service was thus contrary to law and without jurisdiction. For the said purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sardarsing Devising v. D. S. P., Himafnagar and Ors., reported in 1985 (2) GLR 1368 and followed by me in Bhana Guman Patel v. Dy. Conservator of Forests and Ors, reported in 1991 (1) GLR 207 : 1991 (1) GLH 302.