SCA/2185/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2185 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= JASWANTBHAI SAMALBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s) Versus HARIRAM BANGA OR HIS SUCCESSOR & 1 - Respondent(s) Appearance : MR Saurabh M. Patel for Mr. RC JANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS RV ACHARYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 22/09/2008 SCA/2185/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) The petitioner has prayed quashing of the order dated 19.2.2001 by which he was dismissed from his service as driver under the respondent. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the petition in order to avail alternative departmental process. That process in the form of Review Application was followed without any success. During the course of examination of the record and consideration of the contentions of the petitioner, three times, it has been found and stated on oath on behalf of the respondent that the charge of serious misconduct of recklessly driving the vehicle resulting into three casualties was proved and no reason was made out to award any lighter punishment. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the detailed affidavit in reply it was clear that there was no scope for interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner practically conceded that re-appreciation of evidence led before the Inquiry Officer was not permissible and in fact, not possible as no part of the SCA/2185/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT original record of the inquiry was produced with the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (D.H. WAGHELA, J) (pkn)