SCA/2514620/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25146 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= JETPUR-NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DM THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS KRINA CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR RR TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 2, MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 07/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. 4 of SCA/2514620/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 2006, whereby the said appeal was allowed. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. Respondent no. 2 was working as a Engineer with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that while discharging the duties, respondent no. 2 committed serious irregularities resulting into monetary loss to the petitioner. Thereafter departmental inquiry was initiated against respondent no. 2. On completion of the departmental proceedings, respondent no. 2 was found guilty and consequently vide Government Board Resolution No. 58, dated 14.06.2005, he was dismissed from the service. 2.2. Against the said order of dismissal, respondent no. 2 preferred appeal being Appeal No. 4 of 2006 before respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner. 2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 03.03.2007, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. SCA/2514620/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 is time barred and that the appellate authority ought not to have entertained the appeal on the ground that the report of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the delinquent. From the record, it appears that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit and, therefore, the contention with regard to period of limitation is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected. 3.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the serious irregularities alleged against respondent no. 2, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be met, if appropriate direction is issued to the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry after following due process of law. 4.0. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The disciplinary authority may reconsider the case of respondent no. 2 after serving a copy of the inquiry to respondent no. 2. It is expected that the petitioner will follow the principles of natural justice and the relevant procedure prescribed under the service SCA/2514620/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT Rules while conducting the inquiry. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.03.2007 passed in Appeal No. 4 of 2006 is modified to the aforesaid extent. However, it is clarified that the direction directing reinstatement of respondent no. 2 in service is not disturbed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/