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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
