LAWS(GJH)-1998-11-99

NATWARLAL ISHWARLAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 10, 1998
Natwarlal Ishwarlal Patel Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, original petitioner, being aggrieved by the decision dated 13.1.1984 of learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4302 of 1983, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant who was prosecuted for offences under section 381, 411 and 414 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted, moved this Court by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant was serving as a Junior Engineer in Telephone Exchange, Kalol. Copper Wire, which was an essential commodity for the Exchange and which was costly, used to remain in charge of the petitioner. As theft was committed, a complaint was lodged and police filed charge sheet, on completion of the investigation. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three month and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. It seems that the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application interalia stating that the department is thinking of invoking the provisions of rule 10 (1) and 10 (2) (b) of the Central Civil Service Rules of 1965, [hereinafter referred to as the CCSR], which, according to the appellant, was not at all applicable.

(3.) In reply, one M.M. Patel, Assistant Manager, Staff & Administration filed an affidavit in reply on behalf of the Government of India pointing out that an order of suspension was passed in exercise of the powers under rule 10 of the CCSR based on the factum of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol on 3rd September 1983 and an attempt was made to serve the order of suspension but the appellant declined to accept the order and proceeded on leave. It was further submitted that the appellant has not come with clean hands inasmuch as he refused to accept the order of suspension and has rushed to this Court.