IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO 876 OF 1995 For Approval and Signature : Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Order ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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 Civil Judge? --------------------------------------------------------- CT CHAND VERSUS VICE CHANCELLOR, GUJ AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY --------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR IS SUPEHIA for the Petitioner MR JR NANAVATI for the Respondent --------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR JUSTICE S.K. KESHOTE Date of Order : 24/08/1999 C A V JUDGMENT One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders dated 27/7/93 of the disciplinary authority and 6/1/95 of the Appellate Authority are bad in law as the major penalty has been given to the petitioner without giving charge sheet and holding the departmental inquiry. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the grievance made by the petitioner is correct. In the result, this Special Civil Application succeeds and the same is allowed. Both the orders dated 27/7/93 and 6/1/95 are quashed and set aside. However, the acceptance of this writ petition will not come in the way of respondent to initiate fresh departmental inquiry in accordance with law. In case the respondents decide to hold the inquiry against the petitioner then whatever the consequential benefits to be paid to him as a result of the quashing of the impugned orders in this Special Civil Application shall be as per the ultimate decision given in the fresh departmental proceedings. However, in case, where the respondents decide to not to hold the departmental inquiry, the petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits as a result of the quashing and setting of these two impugned orders. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (S.K.Keshote, J.) *Pvv