IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2047 of 1987 with CIVIL APPLICATION No 6 OF 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @ VINOD C TRIVEDI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2047 of 1987 MR SK JHAVERI for Petitioner No. 1 MR LR PUJARI, AGP for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT Date of decision: 13/08/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Learned counsel Mr.S.K.Jhaveri for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court upon the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 28.8.2002, wherein, specific directions are given, which read as follows: "In the facts and circumstances, learned A.G.P. is directed to file an affidavit-in-reply within two weeks from today and produce the original papers of the inquiry proceeding on the record of this case and to show the same to this Court so as this Court may be able to know as to whether the inquiry proceedings were completed in the month of January 1980 and the petitioner was exonerated, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Put up this matter on 19.7.2002." Again, when the matter was called out today, learned counsel Mr.Jhaveri has pointed out that the original papers of the inquiry proceedings are not produced on record of the case despite direction of the Court. It appears that the original papers of the inquiry proceedings were directed to be produced on record of this case to facilitate this Court to find out the truth regarding the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. The contention of the petitioner has been that he came to be exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority, whereas, the department has passed the order of penalty. Unfortunately, the concerned officer is not present in the court along with record and, admittedly, the original papers of inquiry proceedings are not placed on record. Notwithstanding that, learned counsel Mr.Jhavari has submitted that even without entering into merits of the above controversy about the factum of the result upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry taken by the disciplinary authority, there is another fatal blow to the order of punishment awarded against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as the disciplinary authority who heard the matter has not decided the matter. According to his submission, this aspect itself goes to the root of the departmental proceedings. In support of this contention, learned counsel Mr.Jhaveri has pointed out that the disciplinary authority, namely, one Mr.K.M.Bhatt, Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department of State of Gujarat, upon request made by the petitioner had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 30.8.83 and it was not decided by the same disciplinary authority and instead it came to be decided by another Disciplinary Authority, namely, one Mr.R.M.Shah, Deputy Secretary of the same department on 13.10.84 who had not heard the matter. It is, therefore, rightly, submitted by learned counsel Mr.Jhaveri that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Obviously and evidently, the decision making authority who heard the matter is obliged to apply his mind and consider the submissions raised and decide the matter. So is not the factual position in the present case, about which there is no dispute. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent authority itself is self-eloquent. Naturally, therefore, there is violation of the principles of natural justice irrespective of the result. Therefore, the only course open to this Court is to quash the impugned order and then to direct the respondent authority to decide the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner afresh. Consequently, the impugned order of the respondent authority is quashed and set aside and the matter is sent back to the concerned respondent authority for fresh hearing and decide the same in accordance with law, as early as possible. The petition, accordingly, shall stand allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil Application also stands disposed of. Rule made absolute. (J.N.Bhatt, J.) (vjn)