LPA/547/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 547 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7145 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PANKAJGIRI JHAVERGIRI METHNATHI - Appellant(s) Versus CHIEF OFFICER KESHOD NAGARPALIKA & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KISHOR M PAUL for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 19/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT LPA/547/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Admit. 2. Mr. Buch, learned Counsel waives service of notice. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the appeal is finally heard. 3. The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7145/2008 whereby the Learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the proceedings of inquiry including that of suspension. 4. This Court had on 14.5.2008 passed the following order in Civil Application No.6069/2008: “Notice to the opponents returnable on 16th June, 2008. Pending the Appeal, there shall be ad- interim stay of the further implementation and operation of the order of suspension dated 28th April, 2008 on condition that the applicant will, within 15 days from today, give an undertaking to this Court to the effect that henceforth the applicant will perform his duties regularly and diligently. Copy of the undertaking will be given to the opponent no.1 Chief Officer, Keshod Nagarpalika. Registry will send the writ forthwith.” 5. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, following LPA/547/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT order was passed : “Notice to the respondents returnable on 16th June, 2008. The appellant will, on or before the returnable date deposit a sum of Rs. 1,500=00 by way of cost of this Appeal in the registry of this Court. The appellant will scrupulously attend to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The Registry will issue the writ forthwith.” 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality states before the Court that pursuant to the interim order passed on 14.5.2008, the suspension order has been revoked and the appellant is taken on duty and he further states that if pending the inquiry, the suspension is continued as revoked, the Municipality has no objection for such purpose. However, he submitted that the Municipality may be at liberty to continue with the inquiry proceedings in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant however, contended that for one day absence, such a serious action is taken and it was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Municipality is desirous of applying pressure tactics under the guise of the present inquiry and therefore, he submitted that for one day absence, if the major penalty is imposed upon the petitioner, irreversible situation may LPA/547/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT arise though it is not a case for imposition of major penalty. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that when the suspension is already revoked and the Municipality has no objection for continuation of the said position, the inquiry can proceed in accordance with law. At the inquiry, appellant original petitioner may raise all contentions as may be available in accordance with law. However, considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, ends of justice would be met, if the decision is taken at the conclusion of the inquiry for imposition of major penalty including that of removal from service, the same is not implemented for a period of two weeks from date of communication thereof to the appellant by registered post. 9. In view of the above, the appeal stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid order passed, the amount of cost which has been deposited by the appellant pursuant to the earlier order of this Court shall be returned to the appellant. (Jayant Patel,J.) (Akil Kureshi,J.) LPA/547/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT (raghu)