(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is notified for final hearing.
On perusal of papers, it is noticed that speaking to minutes is filed pointing out that there is an error in mentioning the date in para 3.1 of the order dated 25.1.2012 passed in Civil Application No.933 of 2012. The date mentioned is "7th December, 2012". That is an apparent typographical error and, therefore, 'speaking to minutes' is allowed. The date be corrected as "7th February, 2012".
2. On perusal of the papers, it is noticed that a direction was issued by this Court on 18th January, 2012 asking the appellant management to reinstate the respondent-Teacher, but the learned Advocate for the appellant states that the said order is not carried out. This amounts to granting stay to oneself. The ground put forward is that SLP is filed before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. The management could have obeyed the order of the High Court by making it clear in the order of allowing the Teacher to resume that 'the said resumption is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the management for taking in SLP' and further clarifying that, 'the resumption is subject to the outcome of the SLP'. The management could have placed such order of resumption before the Hon'ble the Apex Court which would have enabled the Hon'ble the Apex Court to pass an order in SLP despite the fact that the order which is challenged is already complied with.
2.1. The management is taking an adamant approach in the matter. In order dated 18th January, 2012, a direction was given that the Teacher should be allowed to resume on or before 30th January, 2012 which was then extended upto 7th February, 2012. Besides, it was also directed that the management shall undertake the calculation of the amount payable to the Teacher and place the same on record. The management has not carried out even that part of the order.
3. Today when the matter is called out, the Managing Trustee - Kirtibhai Patel is present before the court. He is showing his left hand to substantiate his say that he has undergone by-pass surgery. Besides, he also submitted that on 1st and 2nd February, 2012, he was hospitalised. This is put forward as a ground for not carrying out the order directing the management to place calculation of the amount payable to the Teacher on record. This court is of the opinion that it is a lame excuse on the part of the management. The calculation was not to be done by the Managing Trustee personally. The direction for calculation was known to the management on 18th January, 2012 as the order passed in presence of the Managing Trustee. Instead of getting the calculations done, excuse is shown that he has undergone by-pass surgery but that is a matter of past. Similarly he was hospitalised on 1st and 2nd February, 2012. Today, till 7th February, 2012, no calculation is placed before the court.
4. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the appellant prays for two days' time to take instructions from the learned Senior Advocate who is to appear in the matter before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. At her request, the matter is adjourned to 09th February, 2012. Direct service is permitted. A copy of this order be made available to the learned Advocate for the appellant.
5. When the matter was called out, the Officer, Shashnadhikari - respondent No.2 was not present in the Court. Party-in-person, Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, respondent No.1 complained about the unruly behaviour of the officer and uttering abusive language to him when he went to tender an application to the officer - Smt. Rohiniben Pandya. On hearing the say of the party-in-person, the Court asked the Court peon to call the officer as the party-in-person said that the officer has come to the Court.
6. When the peon went to call her, she entered the court room with mobile phone in her hand and operating the same. She walked all the way with the phone in hand continuing to operate the same. When her attention is drawn to her behaviour, the officer tells that she was busy in switching off the phone. Her behaviour in the court is full of arrogance showing no respect to the court or the court proceedings. She is directed to hand over the mobile to the Court Master.
7. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr Nilesh Pandya prays for pardon on her behalf. It is only after the learned AGP Mr L R Pujari and Mr Nilesh Pandya told the officer, she, with reluctance, says 'sorry'. On inquiry, it is found that she is in service from 1977 and she is due for retirement in 2013. That seems to be the reason for her arrogance.
7.1. On inquiring who is her appointing authority, the officer replied that it is D.E.O. On seeking clarification as to how the D.E.O. can be the appointing authority of an Administrative Officer under the Municipal School Board, the officer corrects her reply and says that the Commissioner, Higher Education, Gujarat State is the appointing authority.
8. This court is of the considered opinion that if such conduct is allowed in the court, it will send wrong message to the society. Therefore, it is deemed proper that copy of this order be sent to the appointing authority of the officer for making necessary note in her service record.
9. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr Nilesh Pandya prays for time to enable the officer to tender unconditional apology. The matter is already kept on 9th February, 2012. Learned Advocate Mr Pandya, if deemed proper, may tender appropriate unconditional apology of the officer.
[RAVI R TRIPATHI, J.] [G B SHAH, J.] msp Top