Nirmalsinh Jatubha Zala vs Chief Officer

Akil Kureshi, J.—The Petitioner was engaged as a temporary driver by Respondent No. 1 Jam Khambhalia Nagarpalika in the year 1995. He continued in such position as per requirement of the Corporation right upto May 2001. it appears that on 5.5.2001, the Petitioner had taken the vehicle of the Corporation for his private use where he had a tiff with the elected member of the Corporation Chandubha Vadel. This led Petitioner to file a police complaint containing allegations that said Chadubha assaulted him in drunken condition. In retaliation, Chandubha filed written complaint dated 8.5.2001 before the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika stating that late at night on 5.5.2001, Petitioner was found in official vehicle of the Corporation driving rashly and carrying one lady in the vehicle.

Showcause notice was therefore, issued to the Petitioner on 8.5.2001 itself. The Petitioner had replied to the same vide his representation dated 11.5.2001 stating that on that date his wife had suddenly taken ill, complaining of chest pain. He had no other means of transport to take her to the hospital. He therefore, out of compulsion used the Corporation''s vehicle. He also produced certificate of Doctor to support his version. He apologised for his lapse and requested for a lenient view to be taken. He offered to pay for fuel used for said purpose. Despite such a stand, Corporation proceeded to terminate his service. He therefore, approached this Court by filing the present petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner had valid grounds for using the vehicle of the Corporation though irregularly. This was first lapse in his entire service. Same ought to have been condoned.

Counsel for the Corporation however, submitted that Petitioner was engaged only as temporary employee. In any case, he had no right to permanency in work.

Considering the submissions made and facts on record, I am of the opinion that Corporation imposed punishment which was excessive. It was the first lapse on part of the Petitioner. In any case, he had shown sufficient excuse for the same. A more sympathetic view could have been easily taken.

Question is even if termination order is set aside, in facts of the case, what relief could be granted.

Petitioner was admittedly a temporary employee. He could not have claimed permanency without selection in accordance with rules. It is stated that his petition for regularization has been dismissed.

In facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, while setting aside the order of termination, since it is not known what is the current position in Corporation regarding the vehicles and current requirement of drivers, it is further declared that same would not automatically result into reinstatement of the Petitioner into original position but would place him in the list of drivers to be employed by the Corporation as and when need arises as per the seniority, however, without terminating any drivers who may be currently employed. In case of the Petitioner, such seniority shall be reckoned from his initial appointment ignoring termination. It shall however, be by abundant caution provided that Petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary or increment for period during which he was not in service.

With above directions petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to above extent.