Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahadevbhai Fuljibhai Chaudhari on 12 October, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/LPA/276/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 276 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5235 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 276 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
Versus
MAHADEVBHAI FULJIBHAI CHAUDHARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR GAUTAM JOSHI, LD.SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.SANAT B
PANDYA(6976) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 12/10/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/LPA/276/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. ADMIT. Mr.Sanat Pandya, learned advocate waives service
of admission on behalf of the respondent- original petitioner.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the present appeal is taken up for final hearing today.
3. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under:
The respondent, who was working as Police Inspector at
Kapadvanj Town Police Station between 09/10/2014 to 31/07/2017,
within his territorial jurisdiction, having prior information, a car was
intercepted and ultimately found that english liquor worth Rs.1,70,400/-
was being transported. Considering the aspect, he was charge-sheeted by
the authority on the ground that he was not vigilant towards his duty as
police inspector. After following the procedure, minor punishment of
warning was given to the present respondent. During the interregnum
period, cases of other similarly situated police inspectors were considered
for promotion, however because of said minor punishment, his case was
not considered. Hence, the original petitioner has filed a writ petition and
following prayers have been made:
"10(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction and
quash and set aside the orders dated 23.05.2018 passed by
the Director General of Police and 09.08.2018 passed by the
C/LPA/276/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
Home Department.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
execution, operation and implementation of the order dated
23.05.2018 passed by the Director General of Police and
09.08.2018 passed by the Home Department.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction to
direct the respondent authority to give the promotion to the
petitioner on the post of the Dy. Superintendent of Police
from 5/10/2018 and grant all the consequential benefits
including seniority.
(E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the
respondent authority to give the promotion to the petitioner
on the post of the Dy. Superintendent of Police from
5/10/2018 and grant all the consequential benefits including
seniority."
4. Learned Single Judge after hearing the concerned parties,
allowed the petition and quashed the orders passed by the State
authorities. Hence, this appeal is filed by the State authorities.
5. Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the appellants would submit that it was duty of the original petitioner
to remain vigilant and keep watch over the vehicles passing through his
territorial jurisdiction. He himself ought to have intercepted the car and
C/LPA/276/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
seized the english liquor. He further would submit that learned Single
Judge has committed an error in directing the authority to consider the
case of the original petitioner for the promotion of Deputy Superintedent
of Police with effect from 05/10/2018. Thus, he submitted that the appeal
may be admitted and the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Gautam Joshi, learned Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sanat Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent has opposed this appeal and supported the reasons assigned by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and order. He would
submit that learned Single Judge has relied upon several decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court and has rightly considered the case when there
was no charges at all. He would further submit that original petitioner
cannot be held negligent when thousands of vehicles are passing through
the territorial jurisdiction of Kapadvanj Town Police Station and,it cannot
be said that it is misconduct on the part of the respondent. He would
submit that since cases of other police inspectors have been considered by
the authority for promotion of Deputy Superintend of Police, learned
Single Judge has not committed any error in directing the authority to
give similar treatment to the respondent and therefore, the appeal may be
dismissed.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. It is not in dispute that the car was intercepted by
Rapid Response Cell and raid was carried out, in which, the respondent
was not there. It is not in dispute that the said contraband was passing
through the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent. So, it cannot be said
that the respondent was negligent in his duty. The respondent was Police
Inspector at Kapadvanj Town Police Station and therefore, authority
could expect that the police officer was having all information about the
C/LPA/276/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/10/2022
vehicles passing through his jurisdiction and therefore, authority has
imposed minor punishment. All these aspects have been considered by
learned Single Judge. We are in agreement with the observations made by
learned Single Judge, which does not call for any interference. However,
observations made by learned Single Judge in Para-7 are hereby modified
and the same now reads as under:
"7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The
impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are
hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are
hereby directed to consider the case of the original petitioner
for promotion, in accordance with law. It is hereby clarified
that it would be open for the petitioner to claim the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police where his juniors are
promoted."
8. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of. In
view of disposal of main appeal, civil application for stay would not
survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
(A.J.DESAI, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL
