BACHUBHAI N. PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of his dismissal passed by respondent No. 3, dated: 30.09.2008, and has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to re-consider his case and to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads as under;

(2.) The petitioner came to be appointed by the respondents as Talati-cum-Mantri with effect from 27.12.1972 and was initially posted at Village: Patpur, Tal.: Choryasi, Dist.: Surat. Later on, a complaint being C.R. No. 151 of 2004 came to be registered against the present petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1963, with Palsana Police Station. In connection with the aforesaid offence, the charge-sheet was lying against the petitioner and others on 7(17).01.2005 and after a full fledged trial, the learned JMFC, Bardoli, convicted the petitioner and others. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner and others preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Vyara, who suspended the order passed by the learned JMFC, Bardoli, and released the petitioner and others on bail. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was issued a notice dated 04.03.2008 and was asked to make a representation. The petitioner replied the said notice and informed the competent authorities that he had already preferred an appeal against his conviction. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 30.09.2008 and was relieved from service with effect from 06.10.2008. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be allowed and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Hence, the petitioner made a representation before the authorities to reinstate him in the wake of his acquittal, but, the authorities took no action. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Heard. While admitting this matter on 29.04.2009, this Court passed the following order;