DHARAMJI FATAJI HEAD CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is a Police Constable instituted a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No 4248 of 198 4/10/1984 in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad and challenged the legality and validity of the show cause notice of proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He also prayed for interim relief by taking out notice of motion. The appellant-plaintiff did not give necessary particulars with regard to the charges levelled and held proved against him at the conclusion of the departmental inquiry. As it has transpired later on the charge against him was that he aided and abetted one Police Constable Babuhai in taking bribe of Rs. 500.00 from one Bhagwandas. For this purpose he made false Panchnama and took signature of said Bhagwandas on blank paper. Without mentioning these particulars in the pleadings the plaintiff obtained interim order against the department and by an order of injunction issued by the Court the Department was restrained from dismissing the plaintiff from service or from taking any further action pursuant to the show cause notice by which the appellant-plaintiff was called upon to explain as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. Ultimately the trial court vacated the interim relief by its order dated 22/02/1985 It is against this order that the present appeal from order is filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the suit has been filed before the conclusion of departmental inquiry. At this stage the appellant-plaintiff has a right to make representation against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The reply or the representation which he may make is to be considered by the appropriate authority of the government. In such suits it would be better if the lower courts be little more cautious and wary before granting ex parte interim relief or even bi parte interim relief. It may not be possible for the civil courts straightaway to say that the suit is not maintainable at all and therefore the suit shall not be entertained. But in such suits if the civil courts grant ex parte ad interim order or even bi parte interim order the result would be that persons who are prima facie found to be undesirable and who are required to be removed from public service would remain in public service and that too under the protection of the orders of the court. Such protection may last for a period of 3 months 4 months or even for a period of one year or more. In such cases apart from the assistance that may be rendered by the counsel for the government it should be considered obligatory by the civil court itself to see that on account of its order interests of the administration in general and the public interest are not marred. It does not require any research or enterprise to understand that a suit against show cause notice calling upon an employee to explain as to why the punishment mentioned in the show cause notice should not be imposed upon him would in all probability be premature. All that the authority asks the employee is to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be imposed upon him. The employee concerned has a right to make representation before the concerned authority where he can take all possible contentions including the contention that the authority issuing the show cause notice had no power to issue the same. Therefore ordinarily when the proceedings before the departmental authority are not terminated it will not be proper for the civil court to interfere at an interim stage. At such interim stages the administrative machinery of the government/establishment should be allowed to have its full play and should be allowed to reach the termination of the departmental proceedings and take appropriate action. Even when a grossest case of lack of jurisdiction or mala fides is prima facie made out the considerations of public interest and the fact that the delinquent concerned has been held to be prima facie guilty and therefore undesirable for being retained in service should be held sufficient by the court not to grant ad interim relief. This is much more so because it is always possible to retrieve the situation even if the order or pro. posed punishment is allowed to come into operation. The department or the employer concerned can be asked to pay the compensation to the employee in case the action is held to be grossly mala fide and absolutely lacking in jurisdiction. It is hoped that in such suits the civil courts will be little more conscious and wary. In such types of suits before granting even ex parte interim relief at the mitial stage of the institution of the suit by which the employee who is prima facie held to be undesirable and against whom prima facie conclusion has been reached that he is required to be punished it would be better if the civil courts take into account the far reaching effects of its order on discipline and morale of the administration and the likely evil effects on the public at large

(3.) For the following reasons it would be proper for the civil courts not to grant the ex parte or even bi parte interim relief in such cases: