Ramesh P. Vaghela vs The High Court of Gujarat and Another

B.J. Shethna, J.—Rule. Learned Counsel Shri Pardiwala waives service for the respondent No. 1 High Court and learned AGP Shri Siraj Gori waives service for the respondent No. 2.

Following prayers have been made in this Application by the applicant original petitioner:

(A) The Hon''ble Court be pleased to revive the Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004 and after hearing the parties, allow the said Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004.

(B) The Hon''ble High Court be pleased to direct the respondent High Court on administrative side to convene a Full Court Meeting within one month for consideration of the Report of the Inquiry Officer in Departmental Inquiry No. 12 of 2001 and to take a final decision in the said Inquiry as per the order dated 22-6-2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9701/06;

(C) The Hon''ble High Court be pleased to direct the respondent High Court on administrative side to reinstate the present petitioner into service immediately by revoking the suspension order dated 20.3.2002 passed in Departmental Inquiry No. 12/2001 against the present petitioner, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, the respondent High Court on administrative side be directed to pay the full salary with all other eligible benefits and perquisites to the petitioner w.e.f. 14-6-2006.

The above main Special Civil Application was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2006 by following order:

The learned Counsel for the parties agree that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No. 1 - High Court of Gujarat be requested to convene Full Court Meeting as early as possible, preferably, within one months from today for considering the case of the petitioner finally,

Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 - High Court of Gujarat is requested to convene Full Court Meeting as early as possible, preferably within one month from today, and decide the case of the petitioner finally.

In view of the above, learned Counsel Shri Soni, for the petitioner, who was present before the Court, seeks permission to withdraw this petition at this stage. Permission granted. Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn at this stage. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged. No costs.

In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court the matter was placed before the Full Court on 28.7.2006 and following decision was taken:

Resolved that Departmental Inquiry No. 12/2001 against Shri R.P. Vaghela, the then Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar(at present under suspension) is assigned to the Disciplinary Committee consisting of Shri Justice D.A. Mehta and Shri Justice Jayant Patel, and the said Committee is requested to expedite the matter in view of the order passed by the Hon''ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004.

The aforesaid decision is produced on record by Shri Pardiwala, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 High Court.

Learned Counsel Shri Soni for the applicant original petitioner made serious grievance that instead of taking final decision, the decision was taken by the Full Court to assign the matter to the Disciplinary Authority of two Judges of this Court (D.A. Mehta & Jayant Patel, JJ.) with a request to the committee to expedite the matter in view of the order passed by this court on 22.6.2006 in main Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004. He, therefore, submitted that the order dated 22.6.2006 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004 be recalled and the above main Special Civil Application No. 9701 of 2004 be revived and the same may be decided in accordance with law. In support of this submission Shri Soni has relied on the averments made in Application, in Para : 8 & 9.

The aforesaid averments made on oath in Para : 8 & 9 give some other impression. In fact the petitioner had called upon the respondent High Court to produce the order passed by the Committee on 19.8.2006 and readily the learned Counsel Shri Pardiwala has produced the same. It is ordered to be taken on record of this proceeding, which reads as under:

Hearing by Disciplinary Committee was kept today i.e. 19.8.2006, wherein the delinquent Shri R.P. Vaghela was personally present. After the hearing commenced, during course of hearing it transpires that there is one more inquiry being Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 2004 which is pending, awaiting report by the Inquiry Officer, the hearing in the said inquiry having already taken place. The delinquent states that there is likelihood of overlapping of some charges in the present inquiry and Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 2004. In the circumstances, a request was made by the delinquent that both the proceedings may be taken up together and for this purpose he is ready and willing to await report of the Inquiry Officer in Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 2004 and completion of the remaining procedural formalities so as to place the matter before the Disciplinary Committee.

In light of the aforesaid fact situation, the present hearing is adjourned and as requested by the delinquent hearing of both the proceedings viz. present inquiry and Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 2004 is required to be conducted together. The Registry is directed to request the learned Inquiry Officer to expedite the completion and tendering of the report at the earliest convenience of His Lordship.

From the order dated 19.8.2006 it clearly appears that an attempt was made by the applicant petitioner to mislead this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Committee on 19.8.2006 makes it clear that it was the petitioner delinquent, who requested not to decide the Departmental Inquiry No. 12 of 2001 pending against him as he apprehended that there was likelihood of over-lapping of some charges in the said inquiry and another Departmental Inquiry No. 1 of 2004. The Hon''ble Members of the Committee have acceded to his request and passed the order dated 19.8.2006.

Under these circumstances there is no question of recalling the order dated 22.6.2006 passed in above Special Civil Application and to revive the same.

In view of the above, this Application is required to be rejected and it is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.