Gujarat High Court
Ahmadkhan Inyatkhan vs Dt. Supdt. Of Police, Banaskantha And ... on 8 December, 1988
Equivalent citations: [1990(60)FLR436], (1989)2GLR1301, (1990)ILLJ449GUJ
JUDGMENT Gokulakrishnan, C.J.
1. Rule, Mr. Joshi waives service of the rule. By consent, the rule is heard today.
2. This Special Civil Application is filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure 'A' on various grounds.
3. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, cannot dispute the legal position that is enunciated in the case of Kiritkumar D. Vyas v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1982 (2) GLR 79) and also the decision given by a learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4791 of 1984 dated 16th January 1985 (Laxman Waghjimal v. K. N. Sharma, D.S.P. Kutch, 1985 GLH (UJ-28) page 20). In this case, the petitioner has no doubt been convicted by a Criminal Court for an offence of accepting bribe. On such a conviction, he was dismissed from service. Before the dismissal, it is clear from the facts that no notice was given. Failure to give notice to show cause before imposing a penalty even in case of a Government servant convicted by a Criminal Court vitiates such dismissal. This principle has been enunciated by this Court in Kiritkumar D. Vyas v. State of Gujarat & Anr. wherein a Bench of out High Court had an occasion to consider Rule 14 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. In this decision, this Court held that even though this Rules does not contemplate giving of the notice, it must be read into this Rule that notice should be given to satisfy the principles of natural justice. The single Judge of our High Court in the decision cited above has also held that until the criminal proceedings are finally over, no action can be taken simply on the ground that the lower Court has found the delinquent guilty. Admittedly, criminal proceedings are pending in this High Court against the order of conviction made on the petitioner herein. Thus, the principles enunciated in both these decisions squarely apply to the facts of the case and as such the order of dismissal cannot stand. Rule is made absolute by allowing this Special Civil Application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
4. In view of the cancellation of the dismissal order, necessary consequences that will follow with regard to emoluments of the petitioner will be worked out and paid to the petitioner herein. It is made clear that if the petitioner was under suspension, he will remain under suspension.