PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. INDRAJIT AMARSINH RAHOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Appeals are Admitted. Mr. Gohil learned advocate appears for the respondents and waives service of notice. By consent of the panics both the Appeals are heard today and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as Supervisor by an order dated 26-10-83 on purely temporary and ad hoc basis. Show cause notice was issued against him regarding his negligence in the service which was replied by him and the D.D.O. of appellate-Panchayat by his order dated 13-5-86 ordered stoppage of one increment because of his said misconduct. Within less then a month from the date of that order the respondent-plaintiffs services came to be terminated by an order dated 3 by the D.D.O. and the plaintiff was removed from the services on the ground that his services are no more required by the Panchayat. That impugned order of termination was challenged by the plaintiff before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D) Godhra in Regular Civil Suit No. 512 of 1986 on the ground that the order of termination of service is not an order of termination simpliciter but passed by way of a punishment which is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution: The learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 17-7-91 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant-Panchayat to reinstate the plaintiff on the post of Supervisor with effect from 3-6-86 and also ordered to pay 50% backwages from 3-6-86 with increments and also declared that the plaintiff be continued in service from 26-10-93. Aggrieved by not granting full backwages the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1993 and the appellate- Panchayat preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.63 of 1991 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and ordering to reinstate him in service with 50% backwages. Both these Appeals came to be decided by common judgment and order dated 20-3-93 by the learned Joint District Judge Panchmahals Godhra whereby the learned Judge allowed the Appeal of the plaintiff and awarded full backwages by modifying the decree passed by the trial court awarding 50% backwages to the plaintiff and dismissed the Appeal of the Panchayat with cost. The Pinochle has challenged the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge in Appeal No. 23 of 1993 by preferring above Second Appeal No. 25 of 1994 and also the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge in Appeal No.63 of 1991 by preferring above Second Appeal No. 26 of 1994.

(3.) The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Shah in these Appeals is that the Courts below have committed an error in treating the impugned order of removal from service as punitive. According to him it was an order of termination simpliciter which does not cast any stigma and it was not a punitive order. He submitted that the services of the plaintiff was found to be unsatisfactory during the period of more than two years and therefore he was removed from service. He further pointed out that in fact prior to passing of the impugned order a show cause notice was also given to the plaintiff regarding his negligence and unsatisfactory work. He was not discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the Panchayat and therefore he was punished by an order dated 13-5-86 by which his one year increment was stopped. In support of his submission Shri Shah relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 42 and A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1242. In my view the judgments cited by Mr. Shah have no application to the facts of this case. In fact there is a direct judgment of the Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court against the appellant-Panchayat in the case of Madan Mohan vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1133. It was a case where the services of a person who put in 17 years service but on temporary basis came to be terminated on the ground that the Chief Minister himself stated in the Assembly about the services of the petitioner being unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court found that such a termination in the background of such statement of the Chief Minister regarding the unsatisfactory services of the petitioner and the Governments intention to serve him show cause notice itself carry with it a stigma of inefficiency and misconduct on the part of the Government servant. Hence the order of termination was set aside on the ground that it was a punitive order. This is exactly the case here. In fact as submitted by Mr. Shah the Panchayat found the plaintiff so inefficient and negligent in discharge of his duties that initially they stopped the increment for one year and within less than a month the impugned order of removal from service came to be passed against the plaintiff. Therefore in my view both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the impugned order of removal and directing the appellant- Panchayat to reinstate him in service.