ATAM SUGNOMAL POHANI Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is taken out by the original petitioner (party-in-person) of Special Civil Application No. 1176 of 1974 inso- far as he is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this court (N. H Bhatt J ) whereunder the original petitioner the present appellant was not granted reinstatement in service with the respondent No. 1-Board and also insofar as he was denied back wages even though the learned Single Judge granted a declaration in favour of the appellant that the order terminating his service was void. The respon- dent-Board has also filed cross objection against that part of the other of the learned Single Judge which grants the aforesaid declaration in favour of the appellant.

(2.) Factual backdrop :- The appellant at the relevant time was an employee of the respondent-Board. He joined the service of the respondent-Board as a technical assistant against the post of Deputy Engineer on 29-5-1963. The appellant is a D. M. E. of D. T. E. Gujarat State and a graduate in electrical engineering from the Gujarat Univer- sity. The appellant continued to serve as a technical assistant till he was ultimately appointed and posted as Deputy Engineer on probation for two years by an order of the Superintending Engineer of the respondent Board dated 30-7-1963. The appellant worked as deputy engineer at different places in the service of respondent-Board. The appellant was then ultimately confirmed in the post of deputy engineer (E. M.) while he was working at Palanpur sub-division with effect from 31 By 1974 which is the relevant year for the present purpose the appellant had come to be posted at Surat as deputy engineer. Where- after the appellant was transferred to Ukai sub-division by Superintending engineer of the respondent-Board by order dated 29-3-1974. He was posted at Ukai sub-station. The appellant was relieved pursuant to the said order from his duty with effect from 30-3-1974 to enable him to join at the place of his transfer. It appears that the appellant had nursed a grievance against the said transfer order. He therefore made a representation to the Additional Chief Engineer of the respondent Board for cancelling his transfer from Surat to Ukai. The pointed out that his mother aged about 70 years was ailing on account of heart trouble and that facilities of medical care were not available at Ukai while they were available at Surat. On this ground he requested that the transfer order might be cancelled. He also sent a telegram on 27 and another representation against his transfer on 9-5-1974. He also filed a suit in the Baroda Court being Civil Suit No. 765 of 1974 on 29-5-1974 against his transfer. It is in the background of this fact that the impugned order discharging the services of the appellant came to be passed by the respondent-Board. The impugned order is at annexure I to the petition. It is dated 27-5-1974. It is passed by the Chief Engineer (R. E.) which is the disciplinary authority so far as the appellant is concerned. The order recites that the appellant was ordered to resume his duties at Ukai but the registered post A. D. letter was returned by the postal authority with the remarks the party refuses to accept the R. P. A. D. letter and therefore returned to the sender. That the appellant was relieved from Surat with effect from 30-3-1974 and he lead not reported for duty at Ukai sub-station uptil then and thereby he had over-stayed unauthorisedly and hence it was ordered that the appellant is deemed to have been discharged from the service of the Board with effect from 31-3 1974 as per service regulation No. 113 The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of deemed discharge by filing Special Civil Application No. 1176 of 1974 in this court. Amongst others it was contended by the appellant that the said order was country to the principles of natural justice. That the procedure prescribed by the Board regulations for discharging an employee on the ground of alleged misconduct of unauthorisedly over-staying leave period was not followed and hence the order was null and void. The appellant also prayed for consequential relief for reinstatement with continuity of service and full wages.

(3.) The learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up for healing after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties came to the conclusion that the impugned order treating the appellants services to have been discharged by deeming fiction was contrary to the basic principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the appellant to have his say in the matter and that service regulation No. 113 of the respondent Board had to comply with atleast minimum principles of natural justice. Consequently the learned Single Judge 8ranted a declaration in favour of the appellant holding the impugned order of discharge to be void and illegal. However so far as other consequential reliefs were concerned the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that locking to the recalcitrant attitude of the appellant and his consistent conduct of disobedience of the orders of the higher authorities be was found to Lee unsuitable for a public service and he did not deserve any relief of reinstatement or back wages. As seen earlier the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge has resulted into the present appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the dissatisfied appellant and in cross-objections by the respondent-Board. ... ... ...