STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DATTU RAGHU VANZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State Government has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above Special Civil Application No.7823/1989.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as, ?the delinquent?) was, at the relevant time, serving as a Police Sub-Inspector under the Commissioner of Police, Baroda city. On 22nd October, 1986 while on duty he was absent from his posting and was found in inebriated condition. A criminal prosecution was lodged against the delinquent for offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(B), 85(1) and 85(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The delinquent was prosecuted in Summary Case No.4832/1986. By judgment and order dated 27th August, 1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara the delinquent was acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Since his acquittal in criminal case, a disciplinary proceeding came to be initiated against the delinquent by a charge-sheet issued on 29th March, 1988. After following the due procedure the delinquent was held to be guilty. On 29th April, 1989 a notice was issued upon the delinquent to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service and why the period spent under suspension be not treated as such. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred Special Civil Application No.4852/1989. The said petition came to be disposed of on 11th July, 1989 (Coram: B.S.Kapadia, J.). The Court was pleased to direct that, ?...Accordingly the respondents are directed not to implement the order of dismissal or removal of the petitioner, if at all passed, in the departmental inquiry held against him, for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, by the petitioner.? As recorded hereinabove, the delinquent came to be dismissed from service by order dated 6th October, 1989 made by the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred Special Civil Application No.7237/1989 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of on 17th October, 1989 (Coram: P.M.Chauhan, J.). The Court was pleased to direct that, ?...In view of the special circumstances of the case, the petitioner should be protected for five days more. The dismissal order is stayed and should not be operated or implemented upto October 25, 1989. Meanwhile, petitioner may submit the appeal memo and application for stay to the appellate authority.? It appears that pursuant to the above order, the delinquent preferred appeal before the appellate authority and also applied for stay of the order of punishment pending appeal. As the said application was not decided forthwith, the delinquent approached this Court once again in Special Civil Application No.7696/1989 with a prayer for direction to the appellate authority to decide the application for stay taken out by the delinquent. The said petition came to be disposed of on 25th October, 1989 as under (Coram: R.A.Mehta, J.):- Mr.A.R.Dave states that the stay application will be decided by 6-11-89. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10-11-89. Hence, SCA is withdrawn at this stage.?

(3.) The above referred application for stay came to be rejected by the appellate authority on 4th November, 1989. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred the above Special Civil Application No.7823/1989. Pending the said petition the appeal preferred by the delinquent came to be dismissed on 5th February, 1990. Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent preferred Revision Application before the State Government. The said Revision Application came to be partly allowed on 6th April, 1990. The State Government confirmed the finding of guilt recorded against the delinquent. However, reduced the punishment from 'dismissal from service' to that of 'compulsory retirement'. The said orders were challenged by the delinquent in the above Special Civil Application No.7823/1989. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the delinquent having been acquitted by the Criminal Court, the disciplinary authority had no authority to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. Initiation of such disciplinary proceeding would amount to sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has, by the impugned judgment and order, allowed the writ petition and has set-aside the order of punishment as well as the action of initiating disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent. Therefore, the present Appeal.