LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-10

ATULBHAI BHALCHANDRA JANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On September 20, 2006
ATULBHAI BHALCHANDRA JANI Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Shri S.P. Majmudar on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 200 of 2004 (689) dtd. 21.03.2005.

(2.) Learned advocate Shri Majmudar has submitted that the respondent has not given effective opportunity to the petitioner for filing reply of show cause notice issued upon him. He submitted that on 31st March, 2004, a request was made by the petitioner to the respondent to grant some more time as petitioner required advice of the lawyer. However, before that, on 07th April, 2004, the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been passed by the competent authority. The petitioner was suspended by respondent by order dated 02nd July, 1994. Thereafter his headquarter was changed at Jafrabad by order dated 26th July, 1994 and suspension allowance was sanctioned by the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 03rd August, 1996 and posted at Jafrabad office of Mamlatdar. In response to that order, the petitioner was resumed duty on 30th September, 1996 where he remained in service upto 01st January, 1998.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has, therefore, submitted that during the period of suspension no subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner by the respondent. He relied on decision of Apex Court reported in the case of Jagdama Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. and relying upon the decision, he has submitted that if during the period of suspension if subsistence allowance is not paid to the petitioner then it amounts to denying the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner which not only vitiates the inquiry but punishment also. He also submitted that Tribunal has passed an order on 16th March, 2005, there was a delay in filing the petition, but according to him, since the petitioner was not having the sufficient fund and he required some legal advice, some more time is consumed in filing the petition before this Court.