BRAHMBHATT BHARATKUMAR HARGOVINDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 22.1.1982 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Mahesana by which the petitioner has been discharged from service by an order dated 15.10.81 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1672/- as security money and the order dated 15.10.81, by the District Superintendent of Police,Mahesana and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits and for arrears of salary and other financial benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) 12 persons including the present petitioner were appointed after going through the examination as police constables from 6.2.81 in the pay scale of Rs.200-3-212-4-240-5-260 by an order dated 6.2.1981. Some threats took place in the night of 3/4.6.1981 and the matter was reported at the police station on 6.6.81. In that case, the petitioner was also involved as an accused out of nine accused persons. The respondent no. 2 District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad district passed some order dated 22nd January,1982 discharging the petitioner from service which appears from the order dated 18.10.81 whereby the petitioner was required to deposit the amount of security bond. The petitioner alongwith others faced the trial for the offences under sections 457 and 380 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons including the petitioner were found innocent and were acquitted by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan vide judgment and order dated 31.1.90.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed after going through the whole process of a competitive test on the regular post by an order dted 6.2.1981. Merely because the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case, the the order of termination/discharge has been passed by the respondent without holding a regular departmental inquiry and thus it is void, illegal and against principles of natural justice. He has also relied on the decision in the case of Babulal vs.State of Haryana and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1310 wherein an ad hoc employee was placed under suspension on the sole ground that criminal proceedings were pending against him and his services were terminated during pendency of the suspension and also during pendency of the criminal proceedings which ultimately has culminated into acquittal and he was not considered for regularisation eventhough he had fulfilled all requisite terms, executive instructions provided for regularisation of such employees. The order of termination of services was thus illegal. In para-8 of the said judgment, a reference has been made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1986 4 SCC 141 in which it is held as under: