IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1346 of 2012
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18232 of 2011
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
===================================== =====================================
THAKORE LALSINH GAMBHIRSINH Appellant(s)
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance :
HCLS COMMITTEE for Appellant(s) : 1, MRVINOD M GAMARA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Respondent(s) : 1, =====================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 29/10/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against order of learned Single Judge dated 23/03/2012, passed in Special Civil Application No. 18232 of 2011 by which, the petition of the petitioner – appellant herein came to be dismissed and the learned Single Judge was pleased to affirm the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Labour Court in the impugned award dated 14/09/2011, passed in Reference (LCM) No. 900 of 2008 (Old No. 184 of 2007) by which, the reference of the petitioner – appellant herein was rejected.
2. We have heard Mr. Vinod M. Gamara, learned counsel for the appellant – original petitioner and Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as a driver in the respondent Corporation. On 24/09/1998, he met with an accident with a scooterist. The services of the appellant came to be terminated by the respondent authority vide order dated 07/02/2001. The appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said termination order. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 16/09/2004. The appellant, therefore, raised an industrial dispute. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, rejected the Reference. Hence the appellant – original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application, as aforesaid, which also came to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that simply his signature had been obtained by which it has been shown that appellant had admitted the charges levelled against him in the departmental inquiry but in fact no fair opportunity was given to the appellant. We do not find any force and substance in it because at no point of time, this case has ever been put up by the appellant. In our considered opinion this submission is nothing but an after thought which has no merit in it. It is well settled legal position that in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of the preponderance of probabilities while in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot give the right to the appellant to be taken back in service.
5. We have gone through the order impugned herein and also perused the material on record. Para 4 of the impugned order goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the same is extracted hereunder:
“4. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this Court is of the view that the labour court has observed in the impugned award that the petitioner employee has admitted the charges against him in the departmental inquiry and therefore the same can be said to be proved against him. The respondent corporation terminated the services of the petitioner employee by following due procedure under the law. The view taken by the labour court is just and proper. Considering the fact that the petitioner employee was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, the labour court confirmed the findings of the departmental inquiry as the acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot give the employee the right to be taken back in service. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the labour court and do not see any reason for causing interference.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince this Court that the learned Single Judge has committed any error apparent, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ]
[ G. B. Shah, J. ]
hiren