Gujarat High Court
Pankajkumar Jayantilal Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat To Be Served Through on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2468 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PANKAJKUMAR JAYANTILAL GANDHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT TO BE SERVED THROUGH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NASRIN M SHAIKH for MS SRUSHTI A THULA(5014) for the Petitioner
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 - State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
" 10(A)(i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, Class II and further be pleased to direct the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge his duty as Range Forest Officer with all consequential and incidental benefits.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside adverse entries from the date 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition,
(i) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the convening of the Selection Committee (Departmental Selection Committee) and taking any decisions on the promotion of Forest Extension Assistant / Vanpal / Forester to the post of Range Forest Officer (Class II).
(ii) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents that the petitioner may be considered for promotion in the Departmental Promotion Committee that is to be convened by the respondent for the post of Range Forest Officer (Class II) as if no adverse entries dtd from the date 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and not considering the Confidential Reports of the year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11.
(C) The Honourable Court may pass such Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
other and further orders as are deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had a clear record of service for more than 33 years; and that it was only after a particular officer came into picture that somehow the petitioner was targeted time and again; and that the petitioner was also targeted before by the same officer and was penalized by stopping his two increments; and that the petitioner who was otherwise a very healthy man had suffered from hyper tension due to this kind of harassment and had to undergo treatment for hyper tension; and that he also suffered from heart ailments and had to undergo treatment of angioplasty and angiography for the same purpose; and that even after the punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed, the petitioner was harassed and now is being denied promotion by giving belated adverse entries; and that the petitioner has already been meted out with injustice by giving a punishment for stoppage of increment, without future effect; and that this order itself was arbitrary and illegal as it was passed after a period of two years and for a period when the petitioner was seriously ill and undergoing medical treatment; and that in Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined order to avoid conflict with his employer and as the petitioner was physically, mentally and economically vulnerable and weak, the petitioner did not challenge the said order; and that the petitioner was meted out with adverse entries for a period where he was not even serving and was ill and taking necessary treatment at his home; and that the petitioner has made various representations to the respondent authorities, however, none of the representations has been considered; and that it is a double jeopardise for the petitioner which is not permissible in service law. In support of the submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of D.Narayanan versus District Revenue Officer dated 17.02.2009. It is submitted that this petition may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Parth Patel for the respondents - State Authorities has vehemently opposed this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent/s and has submitted that the petitioner was remained unauthorised absent from duty for the period from 01.07.2006 to 24.04.2011; and that show-cause notice was given; and that the departmental inquiry was initiated and stoppage of two increments order was passed. He has further submitted that Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined since the adverse entries made in the Confidential Reports against the petitioner for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, he was not given the benefit of promotion. He has submitted that the procedure was followed under Rule-6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. He has submitted that there are two different events. One is for unauthorised absent for about 1758 days, for that, departmental inquiry was initiated and appropriate punishment order was passed; and second is adverse remarks in the confidential reports for about four years. For considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, the confidential reports should be considered which is one of the criteria for promotion. Therefore, there is no question of double jeopardize to the petitioner at all. He has submitted that the authorities has rightly not considered the case of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the adverse remarks in the confidential reports, therefore, it has attained finality. He has also submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has retired from the service by way of superannuation, therefore also, the question of giving promotion does not arise now and this petition has become academic only.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. From the record, it transpires that the petitioner was serving as Round Forester. He remained unauthorised absent from the duty for about 1758 days. For that, show-cause notice was initially served to him, charge-sheet was issued and the petitioner was filed defense statement. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was initiated by the respondents authorities, whereby the punishment order of stoppage of two increments was passed. The authorities have followed the procedure under Rule-6 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules as major punishment.
5.2 Further, there is a provision to write confidential report of all the employees by the employer or higher authority of the employee. There are adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the petitioner for continuous four years i.e. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-22 and 2011-12. While deciding the case of the petitioner for promotion, the departmental promotion committee has to consider the last years' confidential report of each candidate. Since there are adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the petitioner for about four years continuously, the committee has not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion.
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined 5.3 In view of above, both are the different situations; one is for unauthorised absent for long period and another is the non-granting of promotion based on the adverse remarks in the confidential reports continuous for about four years. It is noted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.09.1958. Obviously, the petitioner has retired from the service by way of superannuation. Therefore, the question of granting promotion to the petitioner does not arise at this stage. 5.4 Further, the respondent authorities have passed adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the petitioner for about four years continuous. The said adverse remarks have not been challenged by the petitioner before any authority. The same are challenged by the petitioner before this Court directly, that too after a delay of about six to seven years. Therefore, the said adverse remarks remains same, as adverse. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek direction to ignore the same.
6. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decision of the Madras High Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioner any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of that decision Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2468/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined with such facts.
7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:46:23 IST 2025