Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai S Ahir Since Decd. Thro' ... vs Dist. Supdt. Of Police & 3 on 7 December, 2015
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, K.J.Thaker
C/LPA/1454/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1454 of 2010
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1557 of 1995
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GOVINDBHAI S AHIR SINCE DECD. THRO' HEIRS & L/R....Appellant(s)
Versus
DIST. SUPDT. OF POLICE & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HJ DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 1.4
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1 - 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 07/12/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT)
1. The appellant, who happened to be the appellant in Special Civil Application No. 1557 of 1995, has preferred the present appeal Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Dec 11 00:33:06 IST 2015 C/LPA/1454/2010 JUDGMENT challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16.03.2010, whereunder, the learned Single Judge has held that challenge to the impugned order of penalty imposed upon the present appellant, whereby the appellant was placed to the minimum pay-scale of Constable on 04.07.1993 and the appellate order dated 10.06.1994, whereby, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed in departmental proceedings.
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the appeal would indicate that the present appellant was served with a charge-sheet during his suspension on 07.01.1988, which indicate that he had committed serious mis-conduct and thereby he had harassed the innocent persons, who were roped in false case and were paraded. Said charge-sheet, after due inquiry, culminated into the order of suspension on 04.07.1993, whereunder, the aforesaid punishment of reducing the appellant to the lower pay-scale was ordered, which was confirmed in the appeal on 10.06.1994. The fact remains to be noted that present appellant was also arraigned in a criminal case as an accused in which the Criminal Court rendered its decision on 22.06.1991, acquitting the present appellant of the charges leveled against him. The learned Advocate for the Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Dec 11 00:33:06 IST 2015 C/LPA/1454/2010 JUDGMENT appellant, however, could not show the original charge-sheet filed against the appellant in the criminal case.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant approached this Court by way of filing the aforesaid petition in which the learned Single Judge held that proceedings of Criminal Court and the charges in the departmental inquiry were quite distinct and different and there was no embargo on the department to proceed with the departmental proceedings, which culminated into imposition of penalty.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that, though, the charges were different, the very effective and important aspect which was required to be considered by the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment, was that the Criminal Court did not accept any evidence against the present appellant and rather acquitted him on the ground of his presence not being established at the scene of offence. In that view of the matter, when the Criminal Court's verdict was rendered after the due process of law and the competent Court's findings on record too indicate that the appellant had not been there at the scene of Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Dec 11 00:33:06 IST 2015 C/LPA/1454/2010 JUDGMENT offence, said fact should have weighed with the authorities, but, instead it failed to take into consideration the same. Therefore, the order impugned as well as the suspension order dated 04.07.1993 and the appellate authority's order dated 10.06.1994 deserve to be quashed and set aside, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition.
5. We are, unfortunately, unable to accept the submission on behalf of the appellant and concur that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the two proceedings were different is correct and not assailable in any manner. The charge-sheet in the departmental inquiry, which is produced at Page-25, goes to show that there were serious charges against the present appellant in respect of violation of human rights, and therefore, the entire gamut of departmental inquiry can be said to be distinct and different then what was before the Criminal Court. Assuming for the sake of examining, without holding, that there is existing some plausibility of the appellant being permitted to show the findings of the Criminal Court in a departmental proceedings, the authorities have a different standard of weighing the evidence and departmental proceedings do not require to follow strict rules of evidence and when the misconduct Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Dec 11 00:33:06 IST 2015 C/LPA/1454/2010 JUDGMENT on the part of the appellant amounts to harassment to citizens, who were not even liable to be roped in any offence, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority could not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, in absence of any patent perversity in the order or illegality in the findings or in absence of violation of principles of natural justice, would not interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
6. We are in agreement with the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge and this petition being bereft of merit requires to be rejected and is REJECTED. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Dec 11 00:33:06 IST 2015