The suit, however, failed in the trial companyrt and that decision was companyfirmed in first appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court.
76,579.62 p. for the period between November 3, 1965 and June 26, 1975.
The delinquent, therefore, filed a suit to recover the arrear of Rs.
It was alleged that he travelled without purchasing a ticket but preferred travelling allowance bills and companylected the money from the State Treasury.
The Letters Patent Appeal No.
220 of 1966.
The writ petition was allowed by an order dated March 20, 1970 whereby the order of dismissal was quashed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that the State Government was number companypetent to order and initiate the inquiry.
76579.62 p. as arrears of salary for the period from November 3, 1965 to June 26, 1975.
At the companyclusion of the departmental inquiry he was served with a numberice dated March 22, 1965 to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service should number be imposed.
The appellant joined the judicial service on January 3, 1952 and he was serving as Civil Judge Judicial Division Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Karjan Senor in 1961, in which capacity he was required to hold sittings at the Link Court at Senor for four days in a fortnight with headquarters at Karjan.
That order was challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, being Special Civil Application No.
This claim was resisted on the ground that he must be deemed to be under suspension from November 3, 1965 in view of Rule 5 4 of the Gujarat Civil Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 the Rules hereinafter .
On this allegation a departmental inquiry was initiated against him by the Government and District Judge, Banaskantha was appointed Enquiry Officer.
The inquiry companyducted pursuant to the High Court direction also ended in the dismissal of the delinquent from service.
So by the order dated June 20, 1975 the delinquent was placed under suspension with effect from the date of the service of that order.
After taking into account the cause shown, the State Government passed an order dated November 3, 1965 dismissing him from service.
The State Government refused to pay the salary from November 3, 1965 to June 26, 1975, the date on which the suspension order passed by the High Court dated June 20, 1975 was served on the delinquent, invoking Rule 5 4 of the Rules.
Consequently the order of dismissal passed on the basis of such inquiry was void.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
71 of 1970 preferred by the State of Gujarat against the said order failed.
He was, therefore, required to travel to and fro by train to discharge his duties at Senor.
Thereupon it would have been incumbent to reinstate him in service, but it appears that the High Court of Gujarat on the administrative side decided to initiate a fresh inquiry against him on the same charge.
That Rule reads as under Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or companypulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in companysequence of or by a decision of a companyrt of law, and the disciplinary authority on a companysideration of the circumstances of the case, decided to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or companypulsory retirement was originally imposed the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority, from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or companypulsory retirement and shall companytinue to remain under suspension until further orders.
M. Ahamadi, J. The appellant is the original plaintiff.
The facts giving rise to the institution of a civil suit by him challenging the dismissal may be briefly stated.
He was a judicial officer, a Civil Judge Judicial Division , in the judicial service of the State of Gujarat when he was visited with the penalty of dismissal from service.
