LPA/994/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 994 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30757 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= SARDARSANGH HAMIRJI THAKORE - Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NP CHAUDHARY for Appellant(s) : 1,MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY for Appellant(s) : 1, MS TANUKA KACHHI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1-2,4, MR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 26/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) LPA/994/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms. Kachhi, learned AGP, for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Clerk, learned advocate for the respondent No.3. 2. Sardarsangh Hamirji Thakore, appellant, is before this court being aggrieved by the order passed by this court dated 18.3.2008 dismissing the petition. 3. An employee, after having put in 14 years of service, on one fine morning, for the reasons best known to him, felt like participating in election of Panchayat. He filled in his nomination form on 28.3.2007 and applied for permission also on the same day i.e. 28.3.2007. It is interesting that he applied for the permission to the 'Principal' of the ITI institute in which, he was serving. His application was rejected on 29.3.2007 and last date for withdrawal of nomination form was also 29.3.2007. The appellant got elected in the Panchayat. The department, therefore, issued show cause notice dated LPA/994/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT 25.10.2007 calling upon the appellant to explain his conduct of having contested the election in which, he was elected, as to why he should not be subjected to the departmental proceedings and the consequences thereof in light of the provisions of Gujarat State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, Gujarat State Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 and Grant-In-Aid Code for Industrial Training Institute and other Government Circulars and also the conditions as prescribed in the appointment letter. The show cause notice dated 25.10.2007 was to be replied, which the petitioner did not reply. Atleast, no reply is placed on record of the petition. On 2.11.2007 the departmental inquiry was conducted. After participating in departmental inquiry, on 5.11.2007, the appellant wrote a letter to the Principal of the institute in which it was stated that he disown the replies given by him during the course of the departmental inquiry because according to him the departmental inquiry was not conducted in an independent and 'without self interest'. When it is asked to the learned advocate for the appellant as LPA/994/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT to what this term 'without self interest' means, the learned advocate is not able to explain. The department, after having perused the Inquiry Officer's report, wherein, the charges against the appellant – original petitioner were held proved, dismissed him by order dated 6.11.2007 with immediate effect. This dismissal order was challenged by way of Special Civil Application, which is dismissed and in turn, the petitioner is before this court by way of this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant is not able to explain as to why an employee having put in 14 years' of services participated in election that too without obtaining necessary permission of the department. In fact, there is no scope of any explanation in the matter because it is a matter of record that he participated in election in which he was elected. It is on record and it is submitted by the LPA/994/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT learned advocate for the appellant also that the petitioner having felt that he has misconducted himself by contesting resigned from the Panchayat from 7.8.2007 but, unfortunately, the resignation will not absolve him of the misconduct which is already committed by participating in election. He will have to take the consequences of his misconduct. 5. In the result, the appeal is found without any substance. The same is dismissed. [RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.] [K.M.THAKER, J.] kdc