BALUBHAI AMIDAS KHRISTI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Balubhai A. Khristi has questioned the correctness validity and legality of the order dated 9th March 1972 made by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from the service of the Kaira District Panchayat and order Annexure X dated 12th November 1975 by the second respondent confirming the order of dismissal in appeal preferred by the petitioner as also the order dated 19th March 1975 made by the 4th respondent confirming the order of dismissal in the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dismissing the appeal made by the second respondent.

(2.) A few facts leading to the present petition may be stated. The petitioner was serving as a peon under the Kaira District Panchayat and at the relevant time was attached to the primary school at Petlad. In a raid carried out at one place in Petlad town by the local police on 1st November 1968 petitioner was alleged to be found gambling and along with several others was prosecuted for an offence under secs. 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and was tried by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad. Petitioner was convicted for an offence under sec. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer imprisonment for one week. Petitioner challenged the order of conviction and sentence in the Court of Session at Nadiad and the learned Sessions Judge Nadiad allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. State of Gujarat carried the matter to the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 1970 and this appeal of the State of Gujarat was allowed by the High Court and order of conviction and sentence made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was restored. Petitioner accordingly went to jail and suffered the imprisonment. During the period he was in jail he applied for leave which was granted.

(3.) Subsequently third respondent served a notice dated 25th August 1972 upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service because of his conviction for the offence under sec. 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentence of imprisonment having been suffered by the petitioner. Petitioner gave his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter third respondent passed the impugned order dated 9th March 1972 dismissing the petitioner from service of the Panchayat. The operative portion of the order may be reproduced here: