ARJANJI MOTIJI PAGI Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mrs. T.M. Shaikh LAGP waives service of Rule.

(2.) With the consent of the parties the matter is being taken up for final hearing. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Beat Guard with the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat. He came to be implicated in an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act for charges under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(iii) of the Bombay 1 Act. It was tried as a Summary Case being Summary Case No. 1812/78 by the learned JMFC Modasa and resulted into conviction as per order dated 9-8-1978. 2 The Deputy Conservator of Forest under whom the petitioner was working at the relevant time came to know about this conviction and therefore he passed an order on 30th July 1979 dismissing the petitioner. The order is at page 12 Apparently it has been passed under R. 14 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971. It is this order which is sought to be challenged by way of this petition. On behalf of the respondent as expected it has been pointed out that the petition is required to be dismissed on account of delay. From the date of the impugned order no doubt there is almost 13 years delay. However by itself the delay cannot be fatal to the petition. 1992 SC 1414 and 32(2) GLR 1771 were relied on by the learned AGP. As could be seen from these two judgments the delay respectively had been of 22 years and 18 years. In the instant case the delay is of about 13 years. As could be seen from the petition the plight of the petitioner does not end with the impugned order. The conviction was preceded by a family dispute which took place on or about 4-9-1977. They wanted to lodge a complaint with Malpur Police Station about the incident. This led to their filing a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau against the Investigating Officer a PSI of the said Police Station. Thereafter his involvement in the criminal case under Prohibition Act has occurred.

(3.) The petitioners family was completely displaced on account of Vatrak Irrigation Scheme and they were made to leave the area and find alternative site elsewhere. Eventually in the month of March 1989 or thereabout they came to be given a piece of land somewhere in Modasa Taluka on the outskirts of village Chikli as per Annexure e. The petitioner in the meantime had contacted Advocate Mr. Rashalmiya Gandhi. After getting the land and once the family had settled down the petitioner contacted his Advocate Mr. Gandhi. To the misfortune of the petitioner the said Advocate has expired.