Gujarat High Court
Bharatsinh vs State on 4 October, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14778/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14778 of 2011
=========================================
BHARATSINH
C. JADAV - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO THE COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR HR PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 04/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the alleged inaction of respondent authority of not paying salary and other benefits to the petitioner and to direct respondent authority to pay salary to the petitioner from August, 2003 till date and other incidental benefits and also take final decision with regard to show cause notice dated 1.12.2010 and 23.5.2011.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis on 10.6.1994 and was posted on Primary Health Centre, Kanjeta, Taluka:Dhanpur and on 26.10.1999, the petitioner passed GPSC Examination and after successful training for medical termination of pregnancy on 22.11.2000 he was issued certificate. Later on, he was transferred from Primary Health Centre, Kanjeta to PHC Garadu on 18.7.2003 and thereafter according to the petitioner after he was relieved from PHC Kanteja and he reported to duty at PHC Garadu, and submitted leave application and continued to do so till the petitioner was again transferred to PHC Kanteja in view of request made by him on 26.2.2004 and accordingly, the petitioner was relieved. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has tendered his resignation on 22.4.2004 but the said resignation was not accepted and thereafter it is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2004, 2005 and 2006, the petitioner continued to make representation to competent authority and other higher authorities including the minister but no action was taken and a writ petition was filed being Special Civil Application No.23933 of 2007 and by order dated 18.9.2007 the respondents were directed to consider the representation dated 16th April, 2007 and no expression or any opinion on merit was rendered by this Court. That, saga of making representation continued and once again writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10908 of 2009 was preferred by the petitioner and again by an order dated 9.10.2009, the respondent authority was directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. That, however, the authority on 1.10.2010 directed the petitioner to appear in person so that his grievance can be considered.
3. It is to be noted at this stage that while the petitioner was not on duty he was involved in a case of medical termination of pregnancy illegally and was also detained under Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. Such an officer once again when issued notice by the authority on 24.11.2010 filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6204 of 2011 which came to be unconditionally withdrawn as per order dated 11.5.2011.
4. Subsequently, notices have been given for seeking proper explanation by the authority on 23.5.2011 and such action of the authority are under challenge.
5. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned AGP, for the respondent submits that the petitioner against whom various show cause notices have been issued from time to time and the department is seized with the subject matter of the petition and considering facts and circumstances of the case now authority has issued notice on 23.5.2011 in which, the petitioner is given an opportunity to explain unauthorized absentism which is also replied by the petitioner and decision will be taken in accordance with law.
6. In the above circumstances, considering the overall conduct of the petitioner from 2005 onwards when the competent authority has decided to take action in accordance with law, no direction can be given in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India keeping it open for the respondent authorities to take action in accordance with law including to finalize further process pursuant to the notices issued against the petitioner.
7. No case is made out on merit to issue any direction as prayed for. The petition is summarily rejected with no order as to costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top