DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. VASANTGAURI BABULAL DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, District Panchayat, original defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil suit No. 242 of 1973 assailed the order dated 16. 8. 1982 passed by the Appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1978 reversing the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court and decreeing 5 the suit in favour of plaintiff - present respondent No. 1 and declaring that the impugned order passed by the administrative Officer, Rajkot bearing no. 1747 dated 9. 8. 1971 was void, inoperative and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff continued in service of defendant no. 1 at 60% of emoluments instead of full wages.

(2.) FACTS in brief deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy.

(3.) THE plaintiff, as per his say, was a transferred Government servant to panchayat on formation of the Panchayat. The plaintiff was working as Primary teacher at relevant time. The plaintiff proceeded on half day leave on 13. 1. 1971 and as he was not found in the school, the concerned School Inspector, who visited the school, orally informed the authority not to permit the plaintiff to resume his duties without further orders. The Administrative officer, in his letter dated 22. 1. 1971 to the t. D. O instructed that the plaintiff be asked to give an undertaking that he would be z regularly attending the school before he was permitted to resume his duties. The administrative Officer under his letter No. 1747 dated 9. 8. 1971 terminated the plaintiff's service and ordered recovery of 2 rs. 31. 62/ -. The plaintiff therefore, contended that the impugned order, terminating his service was bad in law, inoperative and not binding upon him and same was void-ab-initio. The order was 3 passed without any inquiry is violative of article 311 of the Constitution and therefore, the same was bad. The plaintiffs leave application dated 24. 1. 1969 had not been taken into consideration. The plaintiff. ' was prevented from attending the duties on account of ailment of his daughter. The plaintiff, therefore issued notice under section 320 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act but as nothing happened thereafter, he was 4 constrained to issue one more notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately, he was constrained to file suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 242 of 1973 challenging the order No. 1747 dated 4 9. 8. 1971 passed by Administrative Officer, Rajkot.