Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14824/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14824 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
B
S JANI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INTELLIGENCE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PINAKIN M RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE
NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by
the respondent-authority dated 14.10.2004 by which the earlier order
dated 14.09.2004, expunging the adverse remarks recorded against the
petitioner, was cancelled.
2. The
facts in brief are that while the petitioner was serving as an
Assistant Commissioner of Police in Surat City, he was communicated
with the adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports for the year
2000 2001 on 21.12.2001. Against the same, the petitioner made a
representation dated 24.01.2002 to respondent no.2 asking the reasons
for such remarks. Thereafter, he submitted his detailed explanation
to the said remarks vide representation dated 05.02.2002. Pursuant
thereto, the respondent-authority passed the order dated 14.09.2004
by which the adverse remarks entered in the C.R. of the petitioner
were expunged and the petitioner was graded as an Average Officer
for the said year. However, immediately thereafter, vide impugned
order dated 14.10.2004, the respondent-authority cancelled the
earlier order dated 14.09.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned
order dated 14.10.2004 came to be passed without affording any
opportunity to the petitioner to present his case and therefore, the
same is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Having
gone through the record, I find substance in the said contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no
material on record to show that before passing the impugned order
dated 14.10.2004, the respondent-authority has afforded any
opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. Learned AGP Mr.
Shah is also not in a position to show from the record that any such
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Thus, on the ground of
violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
4. In
view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
14.10.2004 passed by the respondent-authority is quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top