Gujarat High Court
Rajesh Ramkumar Bansal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 2024
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16553/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16553 of 2021
================================================================
RAJESH RAMKUMAR BANSAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
DHRUV J PATEL(9232) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SHARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 09/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah for learned
advocate Mr. Dhruv J. Patel on behalf of the petitioner and
learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sharda on behalf of the respondent -
State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
being granted all the benefits as would be available to the
petitioner on account of the petitioner being reinstated in
service upon the conviction order passed against the petitioner
being set aside by this Court in appeal. It is submitted by
learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner had been selected for the post of Police Sub
Inspector in the year 1995 and whereas while the petitioner
was working as such, an FIR came to be filed against the
petitioner alleging commission of offences under the Prevention
of Corruption Act and whereas the trial against the petitioner
arising from the FIR had culminated in the petitioner being
convicted for the offences, which conviction was vide judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16553/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
and order dated 29.08.2009. It is submitted by learned
advocate that based upon the conviction, the respondent
authorities had dismissed the petitioner from services, vide an
order dated 29.09.2009. Learned advocate would further submit
that against the order of conviction, the petitioner had
preferred an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal
No.1622 of 2009 which came to be decided by this Court, vide
judgment dated 08.02.2017 whereby the petitioner had been
acquitted. Learned advocate would submit that at relevant
point of time the State had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India which was pending adjudication. It is
submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to the acquittal by
this Court, the petitioner had requested for reinstatement and
whereas vide an order dated 25.07.2017, the petitioner had
been reinstated in service. It is submitted by learned advocate
that though the petitioner had been reinstated, the petitioner
had not been provided with the consequential benefits which
would accrue in favour of the petitioner on account of the
dismissal order dated 29.09.2017 being set aside. Learned
advocate would submit that upon the dismissal order being set
aside and the petitioner being reinstated in service, all
consequential benefits as if the order of dismissal not having
been passed at all were required to be given to the petitioner.
Learned advocate Mr. Shah would additionally submit that
while the request of the petitioner had been refused some
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16553/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
times in the year 2019, more particularly, informing the
petitioner that the petitioner could not be given benefits since
the SLP preferred by the State was pending consideration of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, yet, vide an order dated 11.09.2023,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also been pleased to
reject the SLP preferred by the State. Learned advocate would
submit that under such circumstances, there was no reason for
the respondent not to have granted all the consequential
benefits to the present petitioner.
3. As against such submissions, learned AGP Ms. Nirali
Sharda would tender copy of a communication dated
08.01.2024 by the Additional Director General of Police
(Administration) in the Office of the Director General of Police,
State of Gujarat. Learned AGP would submit that while the
State intends to grant the consequential benefits, more
particularly, the State intents to undertake an exercise as
regards assessing the suitability of the petitioner for further
promotion etx. in view of DPC's held in the interregnum i.e.
DPC held between the date of dismissal to the date of
reinstatement and for such purpose some time would be
granted. Learned AGP would further clarify that communication
dated 08.01.2024 only speaks about grant of promotional
benefits etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16553/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates
for the respective parties and having perused the documents on
record as well as communication dated 08.01.2024, it would
appear that while the petitioner had been dismissed from
service on account of conviction, upon the conviction being
set aside by the superior court i.e. this Court, the petitioner
having been reinstated, the petitioner was entitled to all the
benefits as would have been available to him as if the order of
dismissal had not been passed at all. Again, while the State
had preferred a petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court
challenging decision of this Court to acquit the present
petitioner, yet, the same also has has not met with any
success. Under such circumstances, there does not appear to be
any impediment whatsoever in granting the all consequential
benefits to the petitioner as if order of dismissal dated
29.09.2009 had not been passed at all including the
promotional benefits as mentioned in communication dated
08.01.2024. In this view of the matter, while the request as
submitted by learned AGP is exceeded to, further directions are
also required to be passed. Hence, the following order:-
(i) The respondent - State to grant all consequential benefits
to the petitioner upon an order dated 29.09.2009 being set
aside and the petitioner being reinstated in service on
25.07.2017.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16553/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2024
undefined
To clarify all benefits that would have been available to
the petitioner as if order dated 29.09.2009 had not been
passed, shall be made available to the petitioner.
(ii) Since in addition to financial benefits, even the suitability
of the petitioner for further promotion is required to be
assessed, more particularly, since it would appear that in the
interregnum i.e. between the date of dismissal to the date of
reinstatement that were atleast 9 DPC's, therefore, the State is
granted the time of three months as requested for.
(iii) The above exercise shall be concluded by the State within
a period of three months from date of receipt of this order.
Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the
decision which may be taken by the respondents wholly oral
part, if he is aggrieved on account of the same.
5. With the observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
