TUSHAR D BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of dismissal from service passed against him dated 22nd May, 2002 by the Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, in the name of the Governor of Gujarat State. The said order has been passed against the petitioner in view of the fact that all the charges except one levelled against him in the departmental inquiry were proved beyond reasonable doubt. One was partly proved. The charge-sheet issued against the petitioner contained in all seven charges, details whereof will be stated in due course of the judgment.

(2.) To appreciate the controversies that have been raised in this petition relevant facts in brief are required to be stated as under :-

(3.) It is the say of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 has been keeping grudge against him since long as he alongwith several other Food Inspectors had expressed complete dissatisfaction against the Department for not framing proper recruitment rules and for not opening proper promotional avenues for the Food Inspectors. It is the say of the petitioner that he had been taking a leading part in agitating this issue and they had even preferred various petitions before this Court for fixing the seniority and for grant of promotion, etc. It is his say that on account of this he had been entering into constant conflict not only with respondent no. 2 but even respondent no. 3 also, who then was Minister for Health and Family Welfare. It is his say that he had, while at Rajkot, detected certain tobacco vendors flouting the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'P.F.A. Act') and, therefore, he had collected samples of the commodities which they were selling. He had also registered cases against some oil millers and he had sought sanction u/S. 20 of the P.F.A. Act for prosecution by filing complaint in the Court against those persons, but the same was not accorded by respondent no. 2. On account of this also there was conflict and ultimately as a measure of vengeance he had passed order transferring him from Rajkot to Bhuj inspite of the fact that he had asked him to post him at Ahmedabad as there were about 65 cases filed by him under the P.F.A. Act and his attendance in the Court was very necessary. It is his say that because of the malafide order passed against him, he had not joined duty at Bhuj but he had been attending the Court proceedings at Ahmedabad whenever there was date of hearing. It is his case that the impugned order has been passed by respondent no. 1 at the instance of respondent no. 2, who himself is guilty of committing several acts of misconduct for which respondent no. 1 has ultimately served him with a charge-sheet. All these acts of misconduct had been brought to light by the petitioner. He has, therefore, prayed for quashing the order.