LPA/1667/2006 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1667 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8021 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= BHANUBHAI J BHATT - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Appellant(s) : 1, MS VS PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 28/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT LPA/1667/2006 2/4 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocates. This Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.8021 of 2006. The appellant is the retired employee. The appellant was employed as Junior Clerk under the District Development Officer, Surendranagar. By charge-sheet dated 11th June, 1996, the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the appellant on as many as seven counts. After holding due disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Officer opined that the Charges Nos.1, 4 and 5 were proved. In view of the guilt proved against the appellant, by order dated 10th September, 1999 made by the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. The said order of punishment has been confirmed by the appellate authority, Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal and by the LPA/1667/2006 3/4 JUDGMENT learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. The only grievance made before us is that before the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant, by application dated 1st September, 1994 he had applied for permission to retire voluntarily. The said application was not considered nor any order was made on the said application. On perusal of papers, it appears that the appellant had been absent from service without leave since 16th December, 1993 till the date he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. Further, he did not attend the disciplinary proceedings except that he did submit his reply to the charge-sheet and second show-cause notice. In absence of challenge to the disciplinary proceedings or the finding of guilt, the order of punishment cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the application for voluntary retirement made earlier was not considered. Besides, the guilt proved against the appellant amounts to forgery. We see no substance in this Appeal. Appeal is LPA/1667/2006 4/4 JUDGMENT dismissed in limine. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) kdc (K.M.Thaker, J.)