KANJIBHAI GODADBHAI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the main Special Civil Application itself is taken up for final hearing as the record is complete in view of the production of subsequent material in the proceedings of the Civil Application No. 7841 of 2007.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was working as the Junior Pharmacist and at that time, one Criminal Case was filed by the Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Lanva, Taluka Chanasama under Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 114 of IPC against the petitioner and one Jagdish Kumar Babaldas Nayak, alleging that there were irregularities and misappropriation of Rs. 2,52,763. 90. The Criminal Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 13 of 2002 ultimately after trial convicted the petitioner and imposed punishment of imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The aforesaid judgement was delivered by the Criminal Court on 31. 12. 2006. It appears that thereafter vide order dated 21. 1. 2004, notice was given for dismissal on the ground of conviction by the Criminal Court and vide order dated 18. 3. 2004, the petitioner was dismissed from service. It may also be recorded that after the institution of criminal case vide Crime Register No. 78 of 1993 against the petitioner and the petitioner having been arrested by the police on 10. 3. 1994 vide order dated 2. 5. 1994 read with 9. 9. 1994, he was placed under suspension pending the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred appeal against the order of conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge at Patan and vide judgement dated 6. 11. 2004 of the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted. It is under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is that in view of the conviction being set aside by the Sessions Court, he is entitled to be reinstated in service. It may also be recorded that pending the aforesaid, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and thereafter the Inquiry Officer was appointed for various charges and as per the report of the Inquiry Officer the charges were proved. The matter had also proceeded further and vide notice dated 13. 2. 2004, the petitioner was intimated by the disciplinary authority that he had concurred with the view of the Inquiry Officer and had called upon to submit reply. It may also be recorded that vide order dated 18. 6. 1994, the Inquiry Officer, was appointed and the report of the Inquiry Officer came to be submitted on 31. 12. 1996. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate writ to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the original post of Jr. Pharmacist with full back-wages and continuity of service as if the dismissal order was never passed.