Gujarat High Court
SCA/8910/1992 of C.T. CHOKSHI Vs G.S. DAHOTRE, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR on 1 December 2000
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8910 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8910 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- C.T. CHOKSHIVersus G.S. DAHOTRE, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BP TANNA for Petitioner MR KM PATEL for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 2, 3, 4
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 01/12/2000
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Shri Tanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised manifold contentions in this matter challenging the order of the Disciplinary authority dated 21st August, 1990 and that of the Appellate authority dated 17th September, 1990, but as this petition deserves to be allowed only on one ground, it is not necessary for me to discuss and give findings on all the contentions.
3. Though learned counsel for the respondent contended that along with the document annexure `D' at page No.31 dated 18th January, 1991, communicating decision of the appellate authority by the Assistant General Manager (Personnel), reasoned order of the Appellate authority has been sent but I do not find any cogent and satisfactory evidence produced on the record in support of this contention. Even in this document it is not given out that the copy of the reasoned order is enclosed. Otherwise also, nothing transpires from this communication that this order has been sent. In view of this fact, this contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.
4. It is the right of the petitioner to file review application and in case the appellate authority has passed a reasoned order it has to be communicated to the petitioner so that he may know the reasons which have been given by the appellate authority not to accept his appeal. Now reasoned order has been filed on the record of this special civil application by the respondents along with their reply.
5. This petition is disposed of in terms that the petitioner is free to file review application against the order of the appellate authority and in case such a review application is filed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the reviewing authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt thereof and after hearing the petitioner where he desires personal hearing. The special civil application and Rule stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
**********
zgs/-