HITUBHA CHANDRASINH ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant original petitioner has challenged the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3182 of 1994 on 8/2/2008, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the petitioner was serving as an Armed Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force, Cadre No. 10, Ukai until he came to be dismissed from service on 8/4/1993. A charge sheet dated 26/2/1991 came to be served on the petitioner on the ground that on 14/9/1990, when the petitioner was posted at a very sensitive point of Wadi Police Station area of Vadodara during the communal riots near Ranavav Masjid, he remained absent. On that day, when the communal atmosphere was surcharged in the City of Vadodara, without obtaining permission of the superior, the petitioner remained absent from 20.15 hrs and left the said point. For the said misconduct, charge sheet dated 26/2/1991 was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2 for holding a departmental inquiry in respect of a charge that on 14 -9 -1990, he left the duty point at 20.15 hours without permission of his superior. The disciplinary authority found the charges proved as per his inquiry report. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 -Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 11/3/1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant replied to the show cause notice on 29/3/1993. Vide order dated 8/4/1993, respondent No. 2 has dismissed the appellant from service.

(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, the appeal has filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Armed Units, which came to be dismissed by order dated 27/7/1993. Thereafter, the appellant has filed review application before the Additional Director General of Police Armed Units, Gujarat State, which was also dismissed by order dated 11/1/1994.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Supehia appearing for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not holding that the appellant could not be held guilty since important witness Ajitsingh, with whose oral permission the appellant had left the place of duty for half and hour for fetching medicine from the tent, was not examined during the departmental inquiry.