KANTILAL S. PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) The short facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Talati -cum -Mantri on 1.4.1963. In the year 1980, there were some charges of corruption levelled against the petitioner, for which he was convicted in the Criminal Court. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Criminal Court before this High Court. This Court was pleased to partially allow the appeal and converted the conviction by substituting it by punishment of imprisonment of 4 months, i.e. sentence already undergone. In the meantime, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service, which dismissal the petitioner appealed against. While this appeal was pending, it is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat reviewed and cancelled the order of dismissal of the petitioner, which was passed in the year 1980. Once again by an order passed in 1982, i.e. precisely on 16.01.1982, the Deputy Development Officer dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the District Development Officer under Rule 19 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the District Development Officer, by order dated 5.12.1991, set aside the order dated 16.10.1982. While doing so, the District Development Officer provided that the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary from the date of his dismissal till his actual reinstatement and that Departmental enquiry against the petitioner shall be conducted.

(3.) The petitioner has stated that pursuant to the said order dated 5th December, 1991, the petitioner reported for duty on 10.12.1991, but he was not permitted to resume duty. The petitioner, thereafter, made several representations and issued notices to the respondent authorities, however, none of them were replied to, nor the petitioner was permitted to resume duty. Even after reaching the age of superannuation on 31.8.1996, the petitioner corresponded with the respondents for being given the salary at least from 10.12.1991 till the date of retirement and also requested for grant of pension. It is the case of the petitioner which is not denied by the respondents, that neither any salary has been paid to the petitioner, nor the petitioner has been paid pension after his retirement.