Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai M Patel vs Baroda Municipal Corporation on 16 July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 200 of 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMESHBHAI M PATEL
Versus
BARODA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR RAVAL for MR. YN OZA for Petitioner
MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner who was appointed as Nagar Primary Education Officer and was under probation has been removed from service under the impugned order dated 16th December 1995 made by the respondent Corporation. The said order of removal was made pursuant to the disciplinary action held against the petitioner. The disciplinary action against the petitioner was initiated by issuing a charge sheet dated 14th June, 1993. The imputation of charge in short refers to several appointments made by the petitioner in the contravention of the recruitment rules and the procedure laid down for such appointment. In course of the disciplinary inquiry the imputation of charge made against the petitioner has been substantially proved pursuant to which the petitioner has been removed from service.
The only defence raised by the petitioner was that he had to make the appointment orders on account of the influence of the elected members of the School Board. In other words, the petitioner's making illegal orders has been admitted by the petitioner.
Learned Advocate Mr.Raval appearing on behalf of Mr.Oza for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the process of disciplinary action held against the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr.Desai appearing for the Corporation has relied upon the observations made by this court in the matter of Special Civil Application No.8369 of 1994 decided on 26th June, 1995 and has submitted that this court also has observed that the officers who are responsible for making irregular appointments require to be dealt with and salary paid to the beneficiaries of such appointment should be recovered from such officers.
In view of the admission made by the petitioner in course of the disciplinary action and in view of the observations made by this court referred to hereinabove the order of removal made against the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
Petition is, therefore, summarily rejected.
Dated:25-9-1996.(Miss. R.M. Doshit, J.)