MAHENDRAKUMAR VEERABHAI MAKWANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1990-9-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 01,1990

MAHENDRAKUMAR VEERABHAI MAKWANA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DIPAK JASVANTLAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
DINABEN VINAYKUMAR SHAH VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-1991-10-3] [REFERRED]
RAMNIKLAL G GOHIL VS. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AMRELI [LAWS(GJH)-1993-6-20] [RELIED ON]
PRASHANT MANVANTRAI SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1994-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHANITBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. DHOLKA NAGARPALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2003-10-16] [RELYING UPON]
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR VS. MUSA ISMAIL AND ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-446] [REFERRED TO]
BHANA GUMAN PATEL VS. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS [LAWS(GJH)-1990-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHCHANDRA BHULABHAI PATEL VS. CHHIMNIBEN KESHAVBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2002-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. MAHESHBHAI P PRAJAPATI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-7-579] [REFERRED TO]
BIRJU BHAGAWANBHARTHI GOSAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-359] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.K.THAKKER - (1.)This petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 26/02/1986 passed by the Commander, State Reserve Police (SRP) Force, Group-XII, Gandhinagar, respondent No. 2 herein terminating his services.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that after he was duly selected, he was appointed as Carpenter by an order dt. 14/05/1984 with effect from that date in the pay scale of Rs. 350-560. The said appointment was purely on temporary basis. He was posted at Nadiad. It is the case of the petitioner that even though his services were satisfactory, by the impugned order dt. 26/02/1986 his services came to be terminated with effect from 30 days from that date. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said order is not an order of termination simpliciter, but by way of penalty and punishment. Since it is punitive in nature, the said action can be taken in consonance with the principles of natural justice by issuing notice, calling for explanation and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since it is not done, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside.
(3.)Miss Doshit appearing for the respondents contended that the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed of an alternative remedy which is available to him under Rule 89(2) of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975. She has further submitted that even on merits, the impugned order is of termination simpliciter and it does not cast stigma. Finally, she has submitted that even if the petition is allowed and the impuned order is quashed and set aside, the petitioner is not entitled to all the reliefs which he has prayed in the petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.