State of Gujarat and Another vs Mahendra Babulalabhai

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this appeal, the Appellants has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.03.1998 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1996, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and the order dated 30.04.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1993 was confirmed.

The facts in brief are that the Respondent was serving as Police Constable and while he was posted at Prisoners'' ward, at that time a raid was carried out by the higher officers wherein it was found that some of the prisoners have consumed liquor. Therefore actions were initiated against the Respondent and under the charge of abetment a criminal complaint was lodged and ultimately the Respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. However, in the departmental inquiry initiated against the Respondent, the charges levelled against him were proved and the Respondent was dismissed from the service. Against the said order of dismissal the Respondent preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1993 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Junagadh. The trial Court vide order dated 30.04.1996 partly allowed the said suit and ordered that the Respondent may be continued in service and his suspension period may be treated as on duty. The trial Court also granted 50% back wages. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 96/1996 before the Court of learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh, which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.03.1998. Hence, this appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. While appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below has found that the Respondent after taking permission from the Head Constable went for meal and during his absence the raid was conducted by the Junagadh City Police wherein illicit liquor was found. In other words, the Respondent was not present when the alleged incident took place and therefore he is not responsible for any of the misconduct. The said fact is established from the panchnama at Exhibit-40, wherein it is clearly stated that the Respondent was not on duty when the raid was conducted. Apart from that the Police Head Constable who was in-charge of the prisoners'' ward had deposed at Exhibit-33 that after taking permission, the Respondent had left the work place and at the time of raid the Respondent was not on duty.

Considering the facts of the case, in my opinion, both the Courts below were completely justified in passing the impugned judgment. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence, find no reason to interfere in this Appeal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.