State of Gujarat vs M.D. Jogal

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present appeal, the Appellant-State has inter alia challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 27th September 1996 passed by Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1988, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd December 1987 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 1985.

It is the case of the Appellant that the Appellant-State is the original Defendant and the Respondent herein is the original Plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 1985, which was decided by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh on 21st December 1987. When the Respondent was serving as a Forest Guard from 05th September 1979 at Sidigalal Bit, Dungar Range, the Appellant-Department had issued a show cause notice and after conducting the departmental inquiry, the services of the Respondent were terminated vide order dated 20th March 1985. Thereafter, the Respondent filed aforesaid suit challenging the order of termination on 15th April 1985, which ultimately came to be allowed in favour of the Respondent vide judgment and decree dated 21st December 1987. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant-State preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1988, which ultimately came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, present appeal.

Present appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the lower appellate Court in the facts and circumstances of the case interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority when it found that the charges levelled against the Plaintiff Respondent were proved in the departmental inquiry?

Having considered the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the documentary evidence produced on record and the impugned judgment and order as well as the substantial question of law, it transpires that the Courts below have after going through the relevant aspects of the matter rightly came to the impugned conclusion, which is just and proper. So far as the only issue is concerned, the learned advocate for the Respondent Mr. Siddharth Dave has relied upon and produced on record a copy of the unreported decision of this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J) rendered on 09th February 2011 in Second Appeal No. 225 of 2005, whereby this Court has in detail discussed the aforesaid issue and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant-State. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant paragraph 27 of the said decision as under:

I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates, perused judgment and decree passed by trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court and also perused record and proceedings received from below Courts. According to my opinion, trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that in departmental inquiry, there was no sufficient evidence to prove misconduct against Plaintiff, which are alleged in charge sheet against Plaintiff. Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer is also baseless and perverse, because, there is no direct evidence, which prove negligence of Plaintiff. The allegation made against Plaintiff was not to take sufficient care for illegal cutting of about 980 trees during period of last 6 months in Mojaria bit. When admittedly, Plaintiff had taken charge and remained in Mojaria bit, at the time of incident, he had completed 21/2 months service, which is not in dispute between parties. Therefore, negligence was not proved in departmental inquiry and no positive evidence was led by present Appellant and Presenting Officer was not examined before trial Court by present Appellant. Witnesses, those who were examined by department before trial Court as well as in departmental inquiry have not supported allegations made against Plaintiff. Therefore, findings recorded by Inquiry Officer is found to be baseless and perverse, for that, detailed reasons have been given by trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court with application of mind. Departmental inquiry was conducted against present Plaintiff under and on the basis of statutory rules, therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide legality and validity of dismissal order and also have jurisdiction to interfere in such cases, when it is a case of no evidence and findings recorded by Inquiry Officer found to be baseless and perverse. To have alternative remedy has not been considered a bar to file Civil Suit, challenging dismissal order by Plaintiff. I have considered decisions, which have been relied upon by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia, in support of her submissions. Both below Courts have rightly decided matter and rightly given decision in favour of Plaintiff and for that, no interference is required. Accordingly, substantial question of law framed by this Court has been answered by this Court. Accordingly, there is no substance in present Second Appeal and present Second Appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

In view of aforesaid and in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Courts below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Courts below. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.