KIRITKUMAR MANILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-numbered Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment dated 14/12/1988 rendered by the learned Single Judge, in Special Civil Application No. 8235/88. In Special Civil Application No. 8283/90, an order was passed on 9/07/1992 that it should be heard along with Letters Patent Appeal No. 18/89. That is how this Special Civil Application is placed for final hearing with the above-numbered Letters Patent Appeal. Common questions of facts and law arise for our consideration in both these proceedings. Therefore, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellant was appointed on probation as a primary school teacher with effect from 28/02/1984 in the school run by Kheda District Panchayat. On successful completion of the period of probation, he was confirmed as primary teacher by an order dated June 30, 1986 with effect from 28/02/1986. It was alleged against him and two others that they had murdered a girl named Simaben by administering poison to her, as she had refused to marry with the appellant. On 21/08/1986, first information report was filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code involving the appellant and two others. The appellant was arrested with reference to above referred to offences on August 21, 1986. As he was detained in jail, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 16/10/1986 with effect from 21/08/1986. The appellant and others were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 202/86. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 28/04/1987 convicted the appellant and others for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was imposed for the said offence.

(3.) It was the case of the appellant that he was not paid subsistence allowance during suspension from service. Therefore, he filed Special Civil Application No.8235/88 praying the Court to direct the respondents to grant subsistence allowance to him. The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, concluded that the appellant had not complied with the condition stipulated in the order of suspension viz. that he should not leave headquarter without the permission of Taluka Development Officer. In view of the above-referred to conclusion, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition by judgment dated 14/12/1988, which has given rise to Letters Patent Appeal No.18/89.