Gujarat High Court
The District Development Officer vs Dipeshkumar Somabhai Vasava on 17 February, 2021
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9447 of 2019
`
==========================================================
THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
DIPESHKUMAR SOMABHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 17/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1 Appellant is the original respondent, who is aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9447 of 2019, whereby it quashed and set aside the termination order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat. The Court also directed reinstatement Page 1 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER of respondent within the period eight weeks on the original post with continuity of service and 100% salary for the interregnum period along with consequential benefits.
2 According to the appellant, respondent had been appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III at Halol on 01.06.2018 on contractual basis with a fixed salary for the period of five years. The services were liable to be terminated in the case of misconduct or indiscipline and breach of conditions of Gujarat Panchayat Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1998.
3 It is averred and alleged that respondent was caught red handed by Anti Corruption Bureau, while accepting a bribe of Rs.30,000/- on 18.02.2019, which was within one year of appointment order. This incident was brought to the notice through a communication dated 28.03.2019. It was also noticed that he was in police custody from 19.02.2019 to 28.02.2019 Page 2 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER and was enlarged on regular bail pursuant to the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Halol, District: Panchmahal. His explanation was called for on 20.03.2019 by issuing a notice as to why his services be not terminated. As his involvement was in a serious case of accepting the bribe, assessment of his performance at the end of every year is a must.
4 He was given a personal hearing on 25.03.2019.
After giving him due opportunity of hearing, on the strength of the terms and conditions of the appointment order and noticing the gross misconduct on the part of taking bribe, his services came to be terminated on 01.05.2019.
this was challenged by the original petitioner, where the Court passed the aforementioned order.
5 According to the appellant, Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009, issued by the Government of Gujarat through the General Page 3 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER Administration Department provides that during the contractual period, appointee is not to be treated at par with regular and permanent employee and is entitled to equal treatment to a regular employee only on completion of contractual period. The resolution dated 22.11.2017 also provides for taking necessary actions in case of gross misconduct and, therefore, there will be a requirement of interference by this Court.
6 We have heard Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant at length. He has taken us through the judgement and order passed by the Single Bench of this Court. According to him, it is a serious case of gross misconduct, as he has taken bribe within one year of his service, where he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/-
from the complainant, who is a Sarpanch at Maswad Gram Panchayat, for clearing the bill of the official work done and it is something which is Page 4 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER extremely serious and deserves no sympathy. He was on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, Halol and his payment was done on 01.06.2018.
First Information Report came to be registered on 19.02.2019 being CR.No.I-03 of 2019 registered with ACB police station, Godhra, District:
Panchmahal against the opponent respondent by the Sarpanch himself. His arrest was also effected and he was also remanded to the police custody vide order dated 28.02.2019. He was released after 10 days of being in the police custody.
According to Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant, the show cause notice was already issued on 20.03.2019 and that is sufficient compliance so far as contractual employees are concerned. He also had shown his concern about the persons accepting bribe even before the completion of the contractual period and he also has pointed out that the work of Rs.1,18,000/-
was carried out and in that relation, he had taken Page 5 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER the bribe from the Sarpanch himself.
7 We have heard extensively Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant and also have considered closely the material on the record. We could notice that judgement of the learned Single Judge, after considering the contents and recitals of the First Information Report, has noted that the order of 01.04.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Godhra, Panchmahal, was on the basis of allegation of misconduct and, therefore, is stigmatic in nature and is without holding of any full-scale departmental inquiry.
Termination of service was not sustainable. The Court, directed reinstatement of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order on the original post with continuity of service and with payment of salary/wages for the interregnum as well as the consequential benefits which may arise, as if the order of termination was never passed. The Court Page 6 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER also directed that reinstatement of the petitioner, which shall be for the period upto making of the total original period fixed for his employment as per order of appointment. The Court further directed that the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order with a further leeway to the present appellant to proceed against the opponent in accordance with law. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
"7. As a result of the above, the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the respondent-District Development Officer, Godhra, Pamchmahal, would be liable to be set aside since it was founded on allegations of misconduct and is stigmatic in nature but passed without compliance of natural justice and without holding any full-scale department inquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner's appointment being on fixed period of five years, it is clarified that the reinstatement would be for the remainder period which would make up the total period of five years fixed period, for which he was appointed.
8. As a consequence of above discussion and reasons, the impugned order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the respondent-the District Development Page 7 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER Officer, Godhra, Panchmahal, terminating services of the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order on the original post with continuity of service and with payment of salary/wages for the interregnum as well as the consequential benefits which may arise, as if the order of termination was never passed. The reinstatement of the petitioner directed as above shall be for the period upto making of the total original period fixed for his employment as per order of appointment. The resultant monetary benefits to be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.
8.1 The respondents are not precluded from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law."
8 Identical issue had been decided by this Court (Coram: Vikram Nath & Ashutosh J. Shastri, CJ,J.) in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor on 24.07.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4439 of 2017 with Civil Application No. no.1 of 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 and allied matter. In this matter, the respondent was Page 8 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER appointed on 22.04.2015 as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Class-III), on a sanctioned post through Gujarat public Service Commission. The appointment was made for a period of five years on contract basis at a monthly fixed salary of Rs.10,000/-. While the employee was on duty at Amirgadh check post, an First Information Report came to be lodged against him alleging that when he went for a small nap for about two hours in the restroom, which is about 200 meters away from the check-post by assigning his work to others, Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB) executed a decoy trap on the weigh-bridge of Amirgadh check post and recovered Rs.39,460/- from one file lying on the Computer Operator's table, whereas an amount of Rs.5,56,105/- came to be recovered from another person. The respondent was issued a show cause notice and when he denied any responsibility or connection with the recovery of the amount, on the basis of the explanation, Page 9 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER which was given by him in the show cause notice issued, the Commissioner of Transport concluded that he committed misconduct and accordingly, his services came to be terminated.
8.1 This was challenged before this Court, where the learned Single Judge did not find the action of the authority sustainable. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 was preferred and the arguments advanced by Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant today before us, had been advanced by learned Government Pleader for and on behalf of the State Government emphasizing that appointment was made purely on contractual basis and on fixed salary and, therefore, such employee cannot be equated with the employees, who are regularly appointed on the post. In a trap which was carried at Amirgadh Check Post, it was categorically found that these respondents have aided and abetted the commission of crime, resulting into First Page 10 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER Information Report registered under the provisions of the prevention of Corruption Act, which was already pending. There was ample material against the employees with regard to their involvement.
8.2 In this background, the Court heard both the sides at length and upheld the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge. Some of the findings and observations in this matter would be profitable to be reproduced:-
"5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the submissions made by them and in view of analysis of relevant record, we have found that the order passed by the learned Single Judge appears to be exhaustive dealing with not only the status of the present respondents and whether the order passed against them is a stigmatic or not. The reasons reflecting from Para.5 onwards are based upon analysis of the relevant decisions in the context of present background of facts. Hence, we deem it proper to reproduce the same hereby :
"5. The question arises is whether the order was punitive and amounted to stigma which ought to have preceded by a regular inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the allegations levelled against Page 11 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER the petitioner employee eventhough petitioner was appointed for a fixed term of five years.
5.1 In judging whether termination is simpliciter or punitive, a trite distinction is made between motive of the order and foundation of the order. In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. [(2000) 5 SCC 152], the Supreme Court explained the concept of motive and foundation in respect of probationer as under: "Motive is the moving power which impels action for a definite result, or to put it differently, motive is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating the services of an employee is an act done by the employer. What is that factor which impelled the employer to take this action? It if was the factor of general unsuitability of the employee for the post held by him, the act would be upheld in law. If, however, there were allegations of serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary inquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be founded on the allegations of misconduct which were to be true in the preliminary inquiry."
(para 29) (emphasis supplied) 5.2 The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] stated and observed thus, "53. Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by Page 12 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus scrutinised, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short of this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slightly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the grounds are recorded in a different proceeding from the formal order does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are given and non-injurious terminology is used."
(Emphasis supplied)(Para 9) 5.4 The principle stated was that even the form of the order may be merely a camouflage for order of dismissal actually passed on the basis of misconduct. In such circumstances, the Apex Court stated, it is always open to the court before which the order is challenged, to go beyond the form and ascertain thetrue Page 13 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER character of the order. The Supreme Court held, "If .... .... .... the court reaches the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that the order of discharge should fall to the ground where the aggrieved officer is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as provided in Article 311(2). It is wrong to assume that it is only when there is a full scale departmental enquiry any termination made thereafter will attract the operation of Article 311(2)."
(Paras 11 and 13) 5.8 It is the foundation of the order which really matters.
The Supreme Court in Anoop Jaiswal (supra) stated that if from the record and the attendant circumstances of the present case it becomes clear that the real foundation for the order of discharge of the appellant-probationer was the alleged act of misconduct, the impugned order would amount to termination of service by way of punishment and in absence of any enquiry held in accordance with Article 311(2), it was liable to be struck down. The Supreme Court thereafter directed reinstatement of the appellant of the said case in service with the same rank of seniority he was entitled to before the impugned order passed as if it had not been passed at all.
5.5 In Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary
(supra) also the Supreme Court
considered its own various decisions on the aspect and after referring to the Page 14 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. [(1999) 2 SCC 21] observed that the proposition of law perating two ways. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers if the inquiry undertaken about the very conduct forms the motive of termination order, then the termination could not be said to be punitive merely because principles of natural justice have not been followed. In such circumstances, without becoming stigmatic, the employer can exercise its right to terminate service of the employee concerned. In the other line of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the facts revealed in the inquiry or from the narration of the order itself that the inquiry into the conduct was not the motive but it was a foundation and the allegation of misconduct considered against employee becomes foundation of termination of service of temporary servant or probationer, such action would become punitive and it would make the order legally unsound. The Supreme Court in Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) thereafter referred to the above quoted observations from Gujarat Still Tubes Limited (supra) terming them as instructive.
5.6 In Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod v. Vadodara Municipal Corporation [2018(2) GLR 1636] the petitioner was Assistant Station Officer and was appointed for a fixed term. It was alleged against him that while serving in the Fire Brigade Branch of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on the post of Assistant Station Officer, petitioner misbehaved with the Telephone Operator and tried to Page 15 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER injured Telephone Operator physically. In the impugned order it was mentioned that while being on the sensitive post petitioner acted with negligency and carelessness in discharge of duties. Show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner and his reply was solicited. Thereafter his services put to an end, this Court referred all the aforesaid decisions to come to the conclusion that the order was founded on the allegations of misconduct and that it was punitive in nature casting stigma. It was held that, "Such an action could not have been taken, eventhough the petitioner was a fixed period employee, without giving the petitioner a full-fledge opportunity to defend and thus by holding a regular departmental inquiry.". 5.7 Decision in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018, which came to be dismissed. The Division Bench, confirming the decision in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra), observed as under.
"4.1 ... ... ... The above act on part of the competent authority of appellant- Corporation was not only stigmatic, but contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court to which reference is made by learned Single Judge and distinguishing the facts of the present case it was found that termination was punitive. As a necessary corollary, when there is a breach of procedure of instituting full- fledged departmental inquiry, particularly, when termination order referred to following of Gujarat Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1971, the issuance of show cause notice, receiving reply and then to take final decision to terminate services of an employee was Page 16 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, in breach of the Rules, 1971, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution as it would not make any difference whether the employee was appointed temporarily for a fixed term on a fixed salary incorporating various conditions."
1.In another decision in Sandip Ajitsinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.12071 of 2018 decided on 26th February, 2019 the same question had arisen where also the petitioner was Junior Clerk employed on temporary basis. In Rahul Aydanbhai Vank v.State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.889 of 2018 decided on 05th September, 2018, the petitioner was a contractual employee who was dismissed on the ground of insubordination. The order was found to have been passed on the allegation of misconduct. Same principles were applied and held that services could not have been terminated without undergoing the inquiry. 5.9 The aforesaid decision in Rahul Aydanbhai Vank (supra) was also confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019. In the following paragraph, the Letters Patent Bench referred to Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) and other decisions to come to the following conclusion to clearly observe that full- scale formal inquiry was requirement of law before the services could have been terminated.
"8. Even decision relied by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another v. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 quotes decision in the case of Pavanendra Page 17 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520] where three tests are enumerated to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not. We find in the present case all above tests namely a full scale formal inquiry, allegation involving moral turpitude or misconduct and culminating into guilt stands satisfied and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge committed no error of fact or law or jurisdiction warranting interference in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent."
When the impugned order is considered in light of the above principles and the position of law, it could be well discerned that the the event of filing of F.I.R. Against the petitioner was treated as base and it was concluded readily by the respondents that the petitioner had committed misconduct for accepting the bribe. Upon this foundation, the termination was effected. It was on the ground of misconduct and therefore the stigmatic order, which could not have been passed without a full scale inquiry.
6.1 An attempt was made in vain by learned advocate for the respondents that there was compliance of natural justice as the notice was issued to the petitioner. A mere notice would not suffice. No inquiry was held, no charge was framed against the petitioner. Without issuing the charge and without putting the petitioner to knowledge of the allegation which he was to precisely answer, the principles of natural justice could not be said to be followed when the order was founded on misconduct. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgement Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER above, it necessitated a full scale inquiry against the petitioner after issuing show- cause notice and by framing appropriate charge, conducting it in accordance with the natural justice.
6.2 The petitioner was a fixed term employee who was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III as per appointment order dated 17th May, 2013 for a period of five years. The impugned order came to be passed on 22nd April, 2015. Therefore, the relief which would ensue for the petitioner shall be upto making up good the total period of five years of employment.
7. As a consequence of above discussion and reasons, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2015 passed by respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Transport is hereby set aside.
Respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner on original post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class- III with continuity of service and with payment of salary/wages for the interregnum as well as the consequential benefits which may arise, as if the order of termination was never passed. The reinstatement of the petitioner directed as above shall be for the period upto making of the total original period fixed for his employment as per order of appointment. The resultant monetary benefits to be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order."
9 In the case of Rahul Aydanbhai Vak vs. State of Gujarat passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. Page 19 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER 841 of 2019 on 15.04.2019, this Court has held that whenever charges are levelled when the action is found to be stigmatic, full-scale departmental inquiry deserves to be undertaken against a contractual employee on fixed salary.
9.1 Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:
"8. The bone of contention of appellants - State authorities is that since the original petitioners are employed on a contract basis and fixed pay, the Department is not under an obligation to conduct a detailed full-scale departmental inquiry. Now, this contention has been the subject matter of scrutiny on earlier occasion before a Coordinate Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 between Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai Modh, decided on 20.2.2018. The relevant observations contained in the said decision are reflecting in Para.4.1 which are also based upon the decision of the Apex Court and in consonance with the provision of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said observations have also been considered at length by the learned Single Judge which are reflecting in Para. 5.7 of the impugned order.
9. Yet in another decision again by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019 between Rahul Aydanbhai Vak v. State of Gujarat, decided on 15.4.2019, in which the same issue has been considered. The relevant discussion of the Division Bench Page 20 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER in the said case is contained in Para.7, 8 and 9, in which in no uncertain terms, almost in similar set of circumstance, the Division Bench has clearly opined that full-scale departmental inquiry will have to be undertaken, if initiation of action on the basis of unsatisfactory work, gross negligence or indiscipline or any act which may tantamount to be stigmatic and as such, consistently this view has been clearly opined by the Division Bench.
10. Yet in further decision which is brought to our notice rendered in Special Civil Application No.10928 of 2014, decided on 29.9.2014, in which also the Division Bench has examined even the status of contractual employment. But since we are not called upon nor concerned with the said issue to be dealt with in the present case, we refrain ourselves from commenting anything and leaving the said issue as it is.
11. From the overall material on record and in consideration of aforesaid observations, we see no distinguishable material to take a different view or deviate from the same. Since almost in similar issue, the proposition is to the effect that whenever any charge is levelled and action is found to be stigmatic, a full-scale departmental inquiry deserves to be undertaken irrespective of whether the delinquent was a regular employee or contractual employee on a fixed salary. As a result of this, we are of the considered opinion that since undisputedly by a brief procedure, an action is initiated against the respondents herein while dismissing their services, said action itself is found to be not on the touchstone of aforesaid proposition of law. As a result of this, no error is committed by the learned Single Page 21 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER Judge. Having perused these material, we are not satisfied with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals.
15. Additionally, we are also of the opinion that these Letters Patent Appeals have arisen out of the learned Single Judge's decision. The scope of Letters Patent Appeal is well defined by the Apex Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in 2016 LawSuit (SC) 94. Relevant Para.5 of the said decision is reproduced hereinafter :
"Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records and come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The appellate bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief."
Hence, we see no other distinguishing circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants and as such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge."
10 In the instant case, without disturbing the right Page 22 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER of the employer, in any manner, as has been also directed by the learned Single Judge, which has not precluded, the employer to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law, as the sole issue, which has been raised before this Court is already decided by this Court, we see no reason to entertain this petition.
11 We are conscious of the pendency of this matter, before the Apex Court with a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.013220 of 2020, where the judgement of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 is challenged by the State. No details of date beyond 15.02.2021 is available.
12 According to Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, no date thereafter is being shown. However, that itself may not be the ground for the Court to entertain or grant stay in this petition with no specific order of stay of the earlier order. The request of keeping the matter pending also does not deserve entertainment.
Page 23 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022 C/LPA/270/2021 ORDER13 Petition stands disposed accordingly.
(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J. ) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) SUDHIR Page 24 of 24 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:19:25 IST 2022