STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KAILASHCHANDRA MASRILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the challenge in both these appeals is common, on a request made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the appeals were heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) So far as Second Appeal No. 48 of 2002 is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Zalak Pipalia submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent in place of learned counsel Mr. T. V. Shah and Mr. R. V. Sampat. He has further submitted that learned counsel Mr. R. V. Sampat was practicing at Junagadh and he is no more and therefore, it would not be possible for him to obtain his no objection for filing the Vakalatnama. So far as learned counsel Mr. T. V. Shah is concerned, he has become jain monk and his whereabouts are not available and therefore, his endorsement relating to no objection in filing the Vakalatnama is also not possible to obtain. Accordingly, registry shall accept the vakalatnama of learned counsel Mr. Zalak Pipalia on behalf of the respondent in Second Appeal No. 48 of 2002.

(3.) Brief facts of the case on hand are that the respondents herein - original plaintiffs were serving with the police department as Armed Police Constables at Junagadh. That, they were served with the order of dismissal from the service by the appellant No. 2 herein without holding any departmental inquiry against them. It is the case of the respondents - original plaintiffs that they had served the department to their satisfaction and even, no adverse remarks were passed against them. That, in 1984- 1985 they were forced by their co-employees to participate in the activities of the union and therefore, they were active members of the union and hold the post in the union. The government declared the said police union derecognized as police employees at Ahmedabad had given a call of strike in July 1988. It is further the case of the respondents - plaintiffs that they had not taken any part in the union activities thereafter. In the Junagadh district, all the employees had remained present on duty because of the command of the State Government of not to go on leave. Thus, there was no reason to indulge the respondents - plaintiffs in the aforesaid activities and resultant action against them. However, the appellant No. 2 herein issued the order of dismissal on 27.07.1988 without holding any inquiry against the respondents - plaintiffs and without given any opportunity of being heard. The inquiry had been dispensed with by the appellants relying on the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and Section 26 of the Bombay Police Act stating that holding the inquiry would reflect badly in police force and safety of the life of the employees of the government would be put in danger. The respondents - plaintiffs were also prosecuted in the criminal Court; they are arrested and subsequently, released on bail. The respondents - plaintiffs filed the suits before the trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court decided the suits in favour of the plaintiffs by common judgment dated 30.12.1989 and the respondents - plaintiffs were ordered to be reinstated in service. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed the regular civil appeals before the District Court, Junagadh, which, by judgment and order dated 17.10.2000, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, against which, present second appeals have been filed by the appellants.