R R VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of termination dated 23. 06. 1984 (Annexure A to the petition) and directing concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his training at Police Training School, Baroda thereafter allow him to work at his original post at Sarijpur Police Station as unarmed constable.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected as unarmed police constable and before actual appointment, he was sent for training at Police Training School, Baroda commencing from 01. 11. 1983. It appears that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent even during training on different 35 days. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 5573 of 1991 before the learned Single Judge challenging aforesaid order dated 23. 06. 1984 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19. 08. 1991 disposed of the said petition directing concerned authorities to reconsider petitioner's case on line with one another employee Ranjitsinh Nathusinh without in any way being influenced by the earlier order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and after taking into consideration the petitioner's representation. That thereafter, petitioner's representation came to be turned down vide communication dated 16. 03. 1992. Hence, petitioner has preferred present petition making a grievance that representation of the petitioner has not been considered in its true spirit as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 5573 of 1991 and non-speaking order has been passed.

(3.) MR. V. B. KUNDAN Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as the petitioner was sick, the petitioner could not attend on respective days and therefore, he was absent from training. It is further submitted that so far as one another employee Ranjitsingh Nathusing is concerned, though only difference is with respect to number of days of absent, he came to be reinstated in service, however, so far as petitioner is concerned, though there is difference of 20 days of absent, petitioner is terminated from service and aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the concerned authorities while reconsidering decision. Mr. V. B. Kundan Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Lal Arya v/s. Commissioner of Police, reported in 2004 (4) SCC 560. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow present Special Civil Application.