1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
[B] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the orders passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 20/7/2006 and order dated 30/03/2007-3/4/2007 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Appeal and the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 13-17/12/2007 in Revision Application of premature retirement and amended order dated 8/6/2009 of compulsory retirement and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages in service at his original post with all incidental and consequential benefits available and payable to the petitioner in the interest of justice;
[C] & [D] ......"
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a 'Barber' in 'A' Company Group-11, Vav SRP, District Surat. On 31.12.2003, the petitioner had a scuffle with one ASI Jangudiyabhai, as regards on consumption of liquor and thereby he caused serious injuries to him. In connection with the said incident, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 27/1-2/2004. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 12.03.2004 to the said charge sheet. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On completion of the inquiry, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 27.02.2006 to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice vide his reply dated 28.03.2006. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide dismissal order dated 20.07.2006.
2.1. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority vide order dated 30.03.2007-03.04.2007 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred revision application and the revisional authority vide order dated 13-17.12.2007 partly allowed the revision application and cancelled the dismissal order and passed the order of premature retirement. Pursuant to the order of the revisional authority, the respondent-authority sent the pension papers of the petitioner to the District Assistant Inspector, Local Treasury Account, Surat. However, the said authority returned the papers on 27.02.2009 on the ground that there are several defects in the case of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-authority vide order dated 08.06.2009 passed the order of compulsory retirement instead of premature retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner made several requests to the respondent-authority to cancel the order of compulsory retirement and reinstate the petitioner in service. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the revisional authority has modified the order of dismissal into premature retirement keeping in mind the long service put in by the petitioner. However, as the order of premature retirement was not in consonance with the provisions contained in the Bombay Police Manual, the Treasury office returned the papers to the respondent authority. Looking to the facts of the case and the serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, the respondent-authority passed the impugned order. I am in complete agreement with the findings and reasonings given by the respondent-authority while passing the impugned order and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top