RAVINDRA YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under :

(2.) Smt. G. Suvarna Kumari, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that orders dated 14-7-1997 and 10-3-1998 passed by respondent Nos.4 and 3 respectively are liable to be quashed because the enquiry held against the petitioner is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice and non-application of mind. She emphasized that while holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him, the Enquiry Officer overlooked documentary evidence produced by him in the form of voters' list, identity card, certificate of Municipal Corporation, ration card, etcetera, which clinchingly show that he was a resident of Gujarat and argued that failure of the Enquiry Officer to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner should be treated sufficient for nullifying the order of dismissal. Learned Counsel then submitted that the Domicile Certificate produced by the petitioner cannot be treated as fake merely because the same was not recorded in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Ahmedabad City.

(3.) Shri S.S. Varma, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government defended the dismissal of the petitioner by arguing that the finding of guilty recorded by the Enquiry Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Shri Varma emphasised that for being treated as a domicile of the State of Gujarat, the petitioner should have resided in that State for at least ten years and argued that fake character of the Domicile Certificate produced by the petitioner in 1988 is proved from the fact that till 1983, he was a resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and passed 10th class examination from a school situated in that State.