STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AVCHAL GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Second Appeals No. 8 of 1990 and 9 of 1990.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that the respondent -plaintiff Avchal Govind, who was employed as Assistant Head Cook with the District Police Headquarters, on 10.6.77 at about 3.00 p.m., asked one Bai Rehmat Meti, a widow to sit in his house and when she refused to oblige the plaintiff, he brandished a knife and threatened her to kill. The authorities, on a complaint, found that the conduct was unbecoming of a person serving in the police department and amounted to moral turpitude and issued a charge sheet on 24.11.78. Regular inquiry was conducted and after finding him guilty, a notice to show cause was issued and ultimately, he was removed from service on 24.9.79. The appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed, therefore, he filed Civil Suit No. 585 of 1981. The said Civil Suit was contested by the present appellant on the pleadings that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction in a matter like present and in any case, punishment could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate. The trial court, after recording evidence and hearing the parties held that the plaintiff was guilty of misconduct, however, interfered with the punishment observing that there was non -application of mind. The trial court ordered that the disciplinary authority would be free to pass appropriate order of punishment. Both the parties felt aggrieved by the said order, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1982, while the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1982. Both the appeals were simultaneously heard. Both the appeals came to be disposed of on 13.8.84. The appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed, but the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed with a direction that the authority could not award such punishment against Class -IV employee, the order was bad and the defendant was directed to reinstate the plaintiff and period of absence from 24.9.79 till reinstatement was directed to be treated as uninterrupted for purposes of retiral benefits etc. The State being aggrieved by the two orders passed in those two appeals has filed the present appeal.

(3.) THE appeal has been admitted without framing any question. Ordinarily, while admitting the appeal, High Court shall frame questions and if such questions have not been framed, then, at the time of final hearing, the High Court is obliged to frame questions. I will take up both the appeals on following substantial question of law: