{"id":151369,"date":"2011-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-05T00:06:49","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T18:36:49","slug":"whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2056\/2007\t 23\/ 23\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2056 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 9943 of 2007\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2056 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 2171 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 9943 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 6338 of 1995\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA   Sd\/-\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nM.M.LAHORI\n- Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nK.C.ABRAHAM\n& 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nNOTICE\nSERVED for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s)\n: 1, 3, \nMS KRINA CALLA ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 14\/10\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
1.0\tAs
\ncommon questions of law and fact are involved in both the petitions
\nand civil applications, they were all heard together and are being
\ndisposed of by this common judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThis
\nlitigation has a chequered history. Record reveals that the
\npetitioner appearing as a party-in-person is litigating since 1986
\nand as on today also he does not appear to be tired despite the fact
\nthat he has retired from service some time in the year 1996. Number
\nof petitions have been preferred since 1986 till this date along with
\nvarious civil applications for one relief or the other relating to
\npromotion. The facts are so inextricably mixed up and the pleadings
\nare also so poor as a result of which it is very difficult to
\nunderstand as to exactly what the petitioner- party-in-person is
\nseeking from this Court. However, I have tried my best to gather the
\nfacts from the record which reveal one thing that the petitioner was
\ndenied promotion to which according to him, he was entitled in the
\nyear 1988 as he was senior most person as Assistant Director,
\nForensic Science Laboratory Department, State of Gujarat and he ought
\nto have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director. His grievance
\nso far has been that his colleagues junior to him who were working as
\nAssistant Director were promoted whereas he has been denied promotion
\non various grounds not tenable in the eyes of law.\n<\/p>\n
3.0
\nFacts which could be gathered from a very bulky record running in
\nabout thousand pages can be summarized as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.1
\n The petitioner vide Notification dated 19.10.1977 was appointed as
\nToxicologist (Class-I) post through G.P.S.C. at Regional Forensic
\nScience Laboratory, Junagadh. Vide resolution dated 12.11.1981, the
\npost of Toxicologist was redesignated to the equivalent post of
\nAssistant Director (Class-I). Vide Home Department Notification dated
\n25.09.1996 and FSL order dated 30.09.1996, the petitioner retired as
\nsenior most Assistant Director on 30th September 1996. It
\nappears that the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application
\nNo.8322 of 1988 in connection with the dispute in question. In the
\nsaid Special Civil Application No.8322 of 1988, he preferred Civil
\nApplication No.9025 of 2005 with the following prayers;\n<\/p>\n
“(i)
\n confirm the seniority of the applicant as given number 1 in the
\ntentative and in the final seniority list;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\n\tquash and set aside the inquiry commission report given in inquiry
\nreport of Case No.44 of 1993 and 49 of 1994;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\n to direct the respondent No.2 State Government to return the
\napplicant Rs.2400\/- recovered as Cut in pension in case of Inquiry
\nReport No. 49 of 1994;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)
\n  Pass the order of promotion of the post of Deputy Director with
\nretrospective effect i.e from the date given to the original
\npetitioner of Special Civil Application No. 457 of 1989;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tissue
\norders that promotion of Deputy Director given to No.2 and No.3 in
\nthe seniority list of Assistant Director is illegal;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tissue
\norders to the State Government i.e. No.2 and the Director, FSL,
\nrespondent No.3 to revise his pay and promote him to the post of
\nDeputy Director with retrospective effect and pay him the arrears due
\nand also revise the pension and pay him the arrears due to revision
\nin pension with retrospective effect within time limit; and<\/p>\n
(vii)
\nto pay him the interest due on above arrears as per the Government
\nRules”\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tWhen
\nCivil Application No.9025 of 2005 along with Special Civil
\nApplication No.8322 of 1988 was taken up for hearing by learned
\nSingle Judge, the learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that
\nprayers made in Civil Application No.9025 of 2005 were not the
\nsubject matter of Special Civil Application No.8322 of 1988 and
\nlearned Single Judge also took notice of the fact that the petitioner
\nherein subsequently for the first time made such prayers in Civil
\nApplication No.9025 of 2005. Learned Single Judge also took notice of
\nthe fact that during the period from 1988 to 2005 the petitioner
\nretired and the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 in the said application also
\nretired. With this set of facts the learned Single Judge disposed of
\nCivil Application No.9025 of 2005 and Special Civil Application
\nNo.8322 of 1988 observing as under:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. N.M Lahori  appearing as party in person has invited attention
\nof the Court to certain documents, judgments inquiry reports etc.
\nexpressed which are annexed with Civil Application No. 9025\/05. He
\nhas vehemently argued  before the Court  that the petitioner was
\ndenied  promotion to which he was entitled in the year 1988 and that
\nhe was senior most person  as Assistant Director and promotion of
\nDeputy Director should have been given to him. Out of the four
\nrecords he has been exonerated  in two reports, whereas in other two
\nreports, charges were proved against him. He has also challenged the
\nfindings  given by the inquiry officer in the said matter. The Court
\nhas repeatedly informed Mr. Lahori that all the subsequent events
\nwhich he has narrated in this Civil Application have nothing to do
\nwith the issue involved in the original petition and hence the same
\ncannot be considered by this Court in the present petition. In
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 8322\/88  his  grievance against the
\ninquiry officer’s finding  or denial  of promotion  or revised  pay
\nscale  etc. cannot be considered. For claiming  such reliefs  he has
\nto file  separate  substantive petition  before this Court as
\nadmittedly  the documents placed along with  the Civil Application
\nwere not forming part of the Special Civil Application 8322\/98. The
\ncourt  therefore  does not entertain  this Civil Application  nor it
\nlooks  into the documents filed along with it. The petitioner  must
\nfile  substantive petition and produce  all relevant  documents with
\nit.  The Court will consider  the same on its own merits. The Court,
\ntherefore  disposes of Civil Application  No. 9025 of 2005 without
\ngoing into merits  and  reserving  liberty  to the petitioner  to
\nfile substantive  petition if he so chooses. As far  as the main
\npetition i.e Special Civil Application 8322\/88 converted  from Civil
\nApplication No. 2127 of 1988 is concerned the same remained  pending
\nonly because while disposing  of Civil Application No. 1731 of 1988
\nthe Court has vacated interim relief  and directed the State
\nGovernment to make promotion  to the post of Deputy Director  in
\naccordance  with the applicable rules  and it would be subject  to
\nthe result of petition.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tSubsequently,
\n  promotions made to the person  on the said post were also retired.
\nThe petitioner has also retired and hence there is no question of
\ngranting promotion to the petitioner as Deputy Director. The
\npetitioner at the most  can claim the difference in salary as
\naccording to the petitioner, he should have been   given the
\nseniority and should have been promoted to the post of Deputy
\nDirector prior to the promotion given to Shri Abraham  as he was
\nstanding at Sr. No 1 first in the provisional seniority list,
\nhowever, the reply was filed before the Court that the seniority list
\nwas not finalised. Mr. Abraham was given promotion on the basis  of
\nmerit cum efficiency. It was also pointed out that substantive
\ninquiry was pending against the petitioner. It was only because  of
\nthat the petitioners case was not considered for promotion at the
\nrelevant point of time. If one looks at the prayer made by the
\npetitioner seeking  direction  to the State Government to take
\nsuitable  action for finalising  seniority list of the Assistant
\nDirector and for completion of the procedure  for finalising of the
\nsaid seniority list,  the same  becomes infructous and by efflux of
\ntime, the Special Civil Application no longer survives. It is
\nhowever, open to the petitioner to raise his grievance  by filing
\nsubstantive petition before this Court claiming  all the reliefs
\nwhich he has claimed in Civil Application No. 9025\/05 and it is  made
\nclear that the Court has not expressed any opinion  so far as the
\nissue raised in this Civil Application are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tSubject
\n to the aforesaid  directions  and observation Special Civil
\nApplication No.  8322 of 1988  as well as Civil Application 9025 of
\n2005 are disposed of without any order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
5.0
\nIt appears that thereafter Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007
\ncame to be preferred. All the matters were being heard together time
\nto time. I have noticed one order passed by learned Single Judge
\ndated 01.12.2010 which makes it clear that many of the reliefs were
\ngiven up by the petitioner and he confined his challenge only so far
\nas promotion to the post of Deputy Director with retrospective effect
\nand consequential benefits is concerned and prayers no.1 and 2 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.6338 of 1995 which are connected. It
\nwould be expedient to quote the order dated 01.12.2010 passed by
\nlearned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 and
\nconnected matters.\n<\/p>\n
”  When
\nthe matter is taken up today, the Party-in- Person Shri M.M.Lahori,
\nwho is appearing as petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2056
\nof 2007 and Special Civil Application No.6338 of 1995 has, drawn the
\nattention of the Court to the prayer clauses in both the petitions.
\nPrayer No.1 on page 34 of  Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007
\nhas been deleted. Prayer No.2 is the same as prayer No.3 on page 16
\nof  Special Civil Application No.6338 of 1995. Prayer No.3 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 is exclusive to that
\npetition and does not find mention in the prayer clause of  Special
\nCivil Application No.6338 of 1995. Prayer No.4 in  Special Civil
\nApplication No.2056 of 2007 is the same as prayers Nos.1 and 2 of
\nSpecial Civil Application No.6338 of 1995, which contains only  three
\nprayers.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis stated by Mr.M.M.Lahori, Party-in-Person that he does not press
\nprayer No.2 in  Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007 regarding
\nDepartmental Inquiry No.44 of 1993 as the said prayer no longer
\nsurvives since the Censure given by the Government in the said
\nInquiry has been deleted by Government Notification dated 16-5-1996,
\nwhich is mentioned in a copy of the Gujarat Civil Services
\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971,under Part III DISCIPLINE, on
\npage 239 in Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther,
\nthe Party-in-Person submits that prayer No.3 in  Special Civil
\nApplication No.2056 of 2007 regarding Departmental Inquiry Case No.49
\nof 1994 also does not survive in view of order dated 10-7-2008 passed
\nin  Special Civil Application No.2056 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\nas stated by the Party-in-Person, prayer No.4 in Special Civil
\nApplication No.2056 of 2007 regarding direction to the State
\nGovernment to promote the Party-in-Person as Deputy Director with
\nretrospective effect and consequential benefits and prayer Nos.1 and
\n2 in Special Civil Application No.6338 of 1995, which are
\nconnected,are the only prayers that survive in both the petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.M.M.Lahori,
\nParty-in-Person has conceded  this factual position.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince
\nthe working time of the Court is over, the matter is adjourned to
\n24-12-2010.”\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tI
\nhave heard the petitioner,- party-in-person at length and to his
\nheart’s content. I have also heard learned Assistant Government
\nPleader Ms.Vayjanti Pathak appearing for the State. I have also
\nperused the record.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tPetitioner
\nvehemently contended that the authorities have acted in a very biased
\nand highhanded manner in refusing promotion to the post of Deputy
\nDirector, Forensic Science Laboratory. He submitted that he is
\nknocking the doors of this Court for justice from 1986 onwards. He
\nretired in the year 1996 but even thereafter the Competent Authority
\ndid not pay any heed and all his colleagues who were junior to him
\nwere promoted. The colleagues have also retired. He submitted that
\ntwo departmental inquiries against him were initiated bearing No.7 of
\n1992 and 8 of 1992 and by order dated 29.01.1994 and 19.10.1993, the
\npetitioner was not found guilty and exonerated. He also submitted
\nthat inquiry No.3 i.e. 44 of 1993 for which charge sheet was issued
\non 05.06.1990 came to be terminated into punishment of written
\ncensure by order dated 20.06.1996. He submitted that all these facts
\nwere brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2008
\nand the learned Single Judge (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) passed an
\noral order which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
“1.\n<\/p>\n
\tPursuant to the order passed on 12.5.2008, today learned AGP Ms.
\nAsmita Patel has produced two sealed covers with regard to the
\ndepartmental inquiries initiated against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSo
\nfar as inquiry Nos.7\/1992 and 8\/1992 are concerned, by order dated
\n29.1.1994 and 19.10.1993, the petitioner was not found guilty and
\nexonerated.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThat,
\ninquiry No.3 i.e. 44\/1993 for which charge sheet was issued to the
\npetitioner on 5.6.1990 which came to be ultimately terminated into
\npunishment of written censure by order dated 20th June,
\n1996.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\ntwo sealed covers dated 5.12.1990 and 29.8.1992 by two D.P.C. are
\npertaining to three different inquiries namely 7\/1992, 8\/1992 and
\n44\/1993, out of which for inquiry Nos. 7\/1992 and 8\/1992, the
\npetitioner is already exonerated as noted above.\n<\/p>\n
4.1.\tSo
\nfar as inquiry No.4 i..e 49\/1994 is concerned, charge sheet was
\nissued on 12.3.1993 and punishment by order dated 15.9.1998, a cut
\nfrom pension was ordered for Rs.200 p.m. for 12 months only.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMean
\nwhile on third occasion Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was
\nconvened on 2.9.1995 which was ultimately adjourned to 12.10.1995.
\nIt was recommended by the DPC to continue and to keep the name of the
\npetitioner in sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.\tTherefore,
\nwhen the petitioner is already exonerated qua inquiry Nos. 7 and
\n8\/1992 and punishment of censure dated 20th June, 1996 is
\ndeleted by notification dated 16.5.1996 from the list of punishment
\nunder Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
\n1971, decision dated 20th June, 1996 becomes vulnerable
\nand illegal.  Of course, the above punishment was again reinserted by
\nnotification dated 1.12.2000.  the learned AGP is unable to dispute
\nabove fact about non-existence of punishment in the Rule Book.\n<\/p>\n
5.2.\tTherefore,
\nthe order dated 20th June, 1996 impugned in this petition
\nby imposing penalty of censure is contrary to rule and no punishment
\nof censure exist as on 20th June, 1996.  The disciplinary
\nauthority could not have been inflicted such punishment and,
\ntherefore, being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tHowever
\nfor final order and on the question about punishment imposed upon the
\npetitioner vide order dated 15.9.1998 by ordering cut from pension of
\nRs.200 p.m. for a period of 12 months inquiry No.49\/1994 initiated
\npursuant to the charge sheet dated 12.3.1993 and recommendation of
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee which was convened initially on
\n2.9.1995 and ultimately adjourned to 12.10.1995 of continuing the
\nname of the petitioner in sealed cover remain to be decided by this
\nCourt and consequential relief of considering the case of the
\npetitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Director, FSL from the
\ndate when his immediate junior came to be promoted on such post will
\nbe considered by this Court on 19th June, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWith
\nthe joint request of both the parties, the matter is treated as
\npart-heard.”\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tHe
\nfurther submitted that the matter was further taken up for hearing by
\nlearned Single Judge (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) on 10.07.2008 and the
\noral order recorded by learned Single Judge is important which reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
”  Today
\nwhen the matter was argued further, party-in-person has placed
\nreliance on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of
\nM.N.Mevada vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1976 (2) SLR page 666
\nand submitted that embargo imposed in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b)
\nof Rule 189-A is equally applicable in case of an employee governed
\nby clause (a) of Rule 189-A and even in that case also institution of
\ndepartmental proceedings for any event which took place more than 4
\nyears before, such institution is bad and in case of the petitioner,
\nfor the incident of 2.1.1988, departmental proceedings commenced on
\n12.3.1993 i.e. about after 5 years 2 months and 10 days and,
\ntherefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by the above ratio
\nlaid down by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
   Next,
\nit was submitted by party-in-person that still recovery procedure can
\nbe followed by the authority in view of the Government Resolution
\ndated 23rd September, 1981 and as per law laid down in the
\ncase of Union of India vs. K.V.Jankiraman<\/a> reported in (1991) 4 SCC\n<\/p>\n
109.<\/p>\n
  Considering
\nthe above submissions, the case of the petitioner prima facie appears
\nto be acceptable, subject to clarification by the learned AGP, for
\nwhich she requests for time.\n<\/p>\n
   Hence,
\nadjourned to 17th July, 2008.”\n<\/p>\n
9.0\tIt
\nappears that thereafter another learned Single Judge (Coram: K. S.
\nJhaveri, J.) took cognizance of the two orders dated 16th
\nMay 2008 and 10th July 2008 passed by learned Single Judge
\nand vide order dated 12.12.2008 recorded as under:\n<\/p>\n
”   This
\nmatter is heard at length. There are two orders dated 16th
\nMay, 2008 and 10th July, 2008, which are crucial in this
\nmatter, read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tPursuant
\nto the order passed on 12.5.2008, today learned AGP Ms. Asmita Patel
\nhas produced two sealed covers with regard to the departmental
\ninquiries initiated against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tSo
\nfar as inquiry Nos.7\/1992 and 8\/1992 are concerned, by order dated
\n29.1.1994 and 19.10.1993, the petitioner was not found guilty and
\nexonerated.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThat,
\ninquiry No.3 i.e. 44\/1993 for which charge sheet was issued to the
\npetitioner on 5.6.1990 which came to be ultimately terminated into
\npunishment of written censure by order dated 20th June,
\n1996.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\ntwo sealed covers dated 5.12.1990 and 29.8.1992 by two D.P.C. are
\npertaining to three different inquiries namely 7\/1992, 8\/1992 and
\n44\/1993, out of which for inquiry Nos. 7\/1992 and 8\/1992, the
\npetitioner is already exonerated as noted above.\n<\/p>\n
4.1.\tSo
\nfar as inquiry No.4 i..e 49\/1994 is concerned, charge sheet was
\nissued on 12.3.1993 and punishment by order dated 15.9.1998, a cut
\nfrom pension was ordered for Rs.200 p.m. for 12 months only.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMean
\nwhile on third occasion Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was
\nconvened on 2.9.1995 which was ultimately adjourned to 12.10.1995.
\nIt was recommended by the DPC to continue and to keep the name of the
\npetitioner in sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.\tTherefore,
\nwhen the petitioner is already exonerated qua inquiry Nos. 7 and
\n8\/1992 and punishment of censure dated 20th June, 1996 is
\ndeleted by notification dated 16.5.1996 from the list of punishment
\nunder Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
\n1971, decision dated 20th June, 1996 becomes vulnerable
\nand illegal.  Of course, the above punishment was again reinserted by
\nnotification dated 1.12.2000.  the learned AGP is unable to dispute
\nabove fact about non-existence of punishment in the Rule Book.\n<\/p>\n
5.2.\tTherefore,
\nthe order dated 20th June, 1996 impugned in this petition
\nby imposing penalty of censure is contrary to rule and no punishment
\nof censure exist as on 20th June, 1996.  The disciplinary
\nauthority could not have been inflicted such punishment and,
\ntherefore, being illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tHowever
\nfor final order and on the question about punishment imposed upon the
\npetitioner vide order dated 15.9.1998 by ordering cut from pension of
\nRs.200 p.m. for a period of 12 months inquiry No.49\/1994 initiated
\npursuant to the charge sheet dated 12.3.1993 and recommendation of
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee which was convened initially on
\n2.9.1995 and ultimately adjourned to 12.10.1995 of continuing the
\nname of the petitioner in sealed cover remain to be decided by this
\nCourt and consequential relief of considering the case of the
\npetitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Director, FSL from the
\ndate when his immediate junior came to be promoted on such post will
\nbe considered by this Court on 19th June, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWith
\nthe joint request of both the parties, the matter is treated as
\npart-heard.\n<\/p>\n
\tToday
\nwhen the matter was argued further, party-in-person has placed
\nreliance on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of
\nM.N.Mevada vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1976 (2) SLR page 666
\nand submitted that embargo imposed in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b)
\nof Rule 189-A is equally applicable in case of an employee governed
\nby clause (a) of Rule 189-A and even in that case also institution of
\ndepartmental proceedings for any event which took place more than 4
\nyears before, such institution is bad and in case of the petitioner,
\nfor the incident of 2.1.1988, departmental proceedings commenced on
\n12.3.1993 i.e. about after 5 years 2 months and 10 days and,
\ntherefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by the above ratio
\nlaid down by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tNext,
\nit was submitted by party-in-person that still recovery procedure can
\nbe followed by the authority in view of the Government Resolution
\ndated 23rd September, 1981 and as per law laid down in the
\ncase of Union of India vs. K.V.Jankiraman<\/a> reported in (1991) 4 SCC\n<\/p>\n
109.<\/p>\n
    Considering
\nthe above submissions, the case of the petitioner prima facie appears
\nto be acceptable, subject to clarification by the learned AGP, for
\nwhich she requests for time.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence,
\nadjourned to 17th July, 2008.”\n<\/p>\n
  In
\nview of the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the respondents
\nis directed to  produce the sealed cover, if it is lying with the
\ndepartment on the next date of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     S.O.\n<\/p>\n
to 23rd December, 2008.”\n<\/p>\n
10.0
\n Thereafter on 16.01.2009, two sealed covers in respect of the
\nproceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee were placed before
\nthe learned Single Judge. Both the sealed covers were opened and on
\nperusal, learned Single Judge thought fit to pass following order.\n<\/p>\n
” 1.\tTwo
\ndifferent sealed covers in respect of the proceedings of the
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee [DPC] held on 05.12.1990 and
\n29.08.1992 respectively, wherein, the issue regarding promotion of
\nOfficers to the grade of Dy. Director in the Forensic Science
\nLaboratory was considered and which are on record of this Court are
\nto be opened.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tInitially,
\nthe petitioner, party-in-person, who is present in the Court, raised
\nserious objection about the genuineness of the said two sealed covers
\nby stating that the same were tampered with. However, subsequently,
\nhe withdrew his objection and requested the Court to open the said
\ntwo sealed covers.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHeard
\nparty-in-person and Mr. H. H. Parikh, learned AGP, appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondent – State. With the consent of the
\npetitioner, party-in-person, both the sealed covers are opened at
\n03.42 PM. The remarks are as under;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t Remarks
\nof 5-12-90 DPC<\/p>\n
“Proceedings
\nof the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 5-12-90 in the
\nchamber of Principal Secretary (Home).\n<\/p>\n
A
\nmeeting of the DPC was held on 5-12-90 to consider promotion of
\nofficers to the grade of Dy. Director in the Forensic Science
\nLaboratory. The following were present :\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
\tShri R. Balakrishnan<\/p>\n
\tPrincipal
\nSecretary, Home Department.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
M.M. Singh<\/p>\n
\tDirector,
\nForensic Science Laboratory,<\/p>\n
\tAhmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tShri
\nJ.P. Mehta<\/p>\n
\tDy.\n<\/p>\n
Secy. To Govt., Home Department.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nCommittee considered the CR file of Shri M.M. Lahori and it was noted
\nthat his CR for the year 88-89 contained adverse remarks against
\nwhich he had represented, but the representation had been rejected.
\nIt was also noted that he had been issued written warning in 89-90.
\nThe Committee, therefore, considered him ‘Not Fit’ for promotion.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t Remarks
\nof 29-8-1992 DPC<\/p>\n
“In
\na departmental promotion Committee’s meeting held on 29-8-92, Shri
\nM.M. Lahori, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory was not
\nconsidered fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Forensic
\nScience Laboratory, in view of the three departmental proceedings
\npending against him.  Also, his case was not justifiable and
\nconsidered in view of his consistently bad confidential records.”\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBoth
\nthe sealed covers are taken on record. Registry is directed to keep
\nboth the sealed covers, duly taped and separately tagged, along with
\nthe record of the file.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOffice
\nis directed to give the xerox copies of the documents kept in each of
\nthe sealed covers to the petitioner, party-in-person, during the
\ncourse of the day.  S. O. to 29.01.2009. It shall be
\nopen to the petitioner, party-in-person, to challenge the genuineness
\nor otherwise of the contents of the DPC report by way of separate
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
11.0
\n It appears that in the year 1990, Departmental Promotion Committee
\nconsidered the Confidential Report of the petitioner and found that
\nthere were adverse remarks against which he represented but his
\nrepresentation has been rejected. The Departmental Promotion
\nCommittee did consider the case of the petitioner for promotion but
\nthey came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not fit for
\npromotion. Once again after two years in the year 1992, the
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee considered the case of the
\npetitioner for promotion and the Committee came to the conclusion
\nthat the petitioner was not fit for promotion to the post of Deputy
\nDirector in view of departmental proceedings pending against him. The
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee also recorded that the Confidential
\nReports were consistently bad. In 1995 also DPC recommended to keep
\nthe name of the petitioner in sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
12.0
\nThe respondent No.2, Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of
\nGujarat, has filed an affidavit so far as dispute is concerned. The
\naffidavit reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“4.\n<\/p>\n
 I state that, by filing this
\nCivil Application the applicant raised an objection against the
\nreport of D.P.C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) which was held on
\n05.12.1990 and 29.08.1992 and the report was opened on 10.01.2009.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n  I state that, D.P. C. has not
\nfound the petitioner fit for promotion and if the applicant is
\naggrieved against that order the same is required to be challenged
\nseparately and the same is different cause of action and therefore,
\nthe Civil Application is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
6.
\n  I state that, in 1988-89 the
\ncase of the applicant was considered as Deputy Director, Class-I from
\nAssistant Director, Class-I but the applicant’s confidential report
\nhad adverse remarks therefore, he was declared unfit for the
\npromotion. I state that, thereafter the adverse remarks and
\nnon-consideration of the case of promotion on that ground was
\ncommunicated to the applicant and the applicant had made a
\nrepresentation on 07.08.1989 and defense\/representation of the
\napplicant was not accepted. The copies of the representation of the
\napplicant and rejection of representation are annexed herewith and
\nmarked as  Annexure-R-I
\n(colly.)<\/p>\n
7.
\n   I
\nstate that, in the D. P. C. meeting which was held on 05.12.1990 it
\nwas recommended to put the result of the applicant in seal cover as
\nit was found that there were 3 departmental inquiries pending against
\nthe applicant. I state that inquiry vide charge sheet dated 05-0690
\nagainst the petitioner resulted in a penalty of ‘censure’. It is a
\nfact that the decision to stop increment
\nwas taken but as the petitioner reached the maximum of pay and it was
\nnot possible to stop his increment and therefore a ‘censure’ was
\nawarded and thus it is clear that he is found guilty in this inquiry,
\nsuch guilty officers should not be promoted and therefore the
\npetitioner’s demand for promotion is not acceptable. I state that,
\nthe applicant has tried to rely upon the case of Dr. K. C. Abraham
\nbut in fact, the nature of work of the applicant and Dr. K. C.
\nAbraham are different and both are from different departments and
\ntherefore, the work of the applicant cannot be equated with the work
\nof Dr. K. C. Abraham.\n<\/p>\n
8.
\n   I
\nstate that, when the applicant was working as a Divisional Head,
\nClass-I, he was irregular in attendance. Therefore, adverse remarks
\nwere drawn on 16.08.1989 and against those adverse remarks an
\nopportunity was given to the applicant to put forward his case and
\nthe applicant had made a representation on 07.08.1989. The same was
\nconsidered by the Director and was not accepted by letter dated
\n27.06.1990 and adverse remarks were kept as it is and considering the
\nadverse remarks for the year 1988-89 the D.P.C. who met on 05.12.1990
\nhold that the applicant is not entitled to the promotion of Deputy
\nDirector and therefore the same is a different cause of action and
\ntherefore, the Civil Application lodging objections against the
\nreport\/ contents is separate cause of action and therefore, the Civil
\nApplication is required to be dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
13.0
\n   Normally, the High Court does not enter into question of the
\ncorrectness of assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees
\nunless there is a strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or
\nthere are mala fides. The High Court cannot interfere with
\nassessments made by DPCs in regard to merit or fitness for promotion.
\nBut in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be mala fide
\nor is found based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and
\ntrivial material and if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight
\nto the positive aspects of one’s career is strongly displayed, or if
\nthe inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach
\nsuch conclusions, or if there is illegality attached to the decision,
\nthen the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution are not foreclosed.  As held by Supreme Court in catena
\nof decisions undue inference by the Court or Tribunal will result in
\nparalysing recommendations of Departmental Committees and promotions.
\nIt is settled that every officer has a right to be considered for
\npromotion under Article 16 to a higher post subject to eligibility,
\nprovided he is within the zone of consideration. But the manner in
\nwhich his case is to be considered is a matter of considerable
\nimportance in service jurisprudence as it deals with “fairness”
\nin the matter of consideration for promotion under Article 16. In
\nthis connection, the Supreme Court in case of Badrinath vs.
\nState Government of Tamil Nadu, reported
\nin (2000) 8 SCC 395
\nhas
\nlaid down the following principles.\n<\/p>\n
“(1)
\nUnder Article 16 of the Constitution, right to be “considered”
\nfor promotion is a fundamental right. It is not the mere
\n“consideration” for promotion that is important but the
\n“consideration”  must be “fair” according to
\nestablished principles governing service jurisprudence.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts will not interfere with assessment made by DPCs unless the
\naggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad
\naccording to Wednesbury principles or was mala fides.\n<\/p>\n
(3)<\/span><\/p>\n
  Adverse remarks of an officer for the entire period of service can
\nbe taken into consideration while promoting an officer or while
\npassing an order of compulsory retirement. But the weight which must
\nbe attached to the adverse remarks depends upon certain sound
\nprinciples of fairness.\n<\/p>\n
(4)<\/span><\/p>\n
  If the adverse remarks relate to a distant past and relate to
\nremarks such as his not putting his maximum effort or so on, then
\nthose remarks cannot be given weight after a long distance of time,
\nparticularly if there are no such remarks during the period before
\nhis promotion. This is the position even in cases of compulsory
\nretirement.\n<\/p>\n
(5)<\/span><\/p>\n
  If the adverse remarks relate to a period prior to an earlier
\npromotion they must be treated as having lost their sting and as weak
\nmaterial, subject however to the rider that if they related to
\ndishonesty or lack of integrity they can be considered to have not
\nlost their strength fully so as to be ignored altogether.\n<\/p>\n
(6)<\/span><\/p>\n
  Uncommunicated adverse remarks could be relied upon even if no
\nopportunity was given to represent against them before an order of
\ncompulsory retirement is passed.”\n<\/p>\n
14.0
\n I have given my anxious thoughts and considerations to the dispute
\nin question. No doubt for two times the Departmental Promotion
\nCommittee did consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. For
\nthe first time in 1990 and for the second time in the year 1992. In
\nthe year 1992, when the Departmental Promotion Committee took up the
\ncase of the petitioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee observed
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
“Proceedings
\nof the Departmental Committee held on 29-8-92 in chamber of
\nAdditional Chief Secretary, (Home).\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n    A meeting of D. P. C. was held on 29-8-’92 to consider promotion
\nof officers to the post of Deputy Director in the Forensic Science
\nLaboratory. The following were present.\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
  Shri V. Krishnamurty, Addl.Chief Secretary, Home<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span>
\nShri K. Chakravarty, Director, Forensic Science  Laboratory <\/p>\n
\t(3)<\/span>
\n Shri Y. M. Joshi, Deputy Secretary, Home Department<\/p>\n
     As
\nper seniority list of Assistant Directors published under Home
\nDepartment Resolution No. FSL\/ 1084\/ 2451-A dated 13-1-’89, the
\nSenior most two Officers were considered as shown below.\n<\/p>\n
         (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
 Shri M. M. Lahori, Assistant Director <\/p>\n
\t(2)<\/span>
\nDr. K. C. Abraham, Assistant Director \t<\/p>\n
       Committee
\ntook note of the fact that there was only one vacancy of the post of
\nDeputy Director and therefore two officers as mentioned above were
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tShri
\nM. M. Lahori was not considered because there are three departmental
\nproceedings pending against him. His C.Rs. are also not good to
\njustify this consideration for promotion. As per General
\nAdministration Department’s instructions, Committee’s recommendation
\nin respect of Shri Lahori has been kept in a sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWith
\nregards to Dr. K. C. Abraham Committee noted that his C.R. S are
\nconsistently good. There was no departmental proceedings pending
\nagainst him. Committee therefore considered him fit for the post of
\nDeputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory.”\n<\/p>\n
15.0
\n Now so far as three departmental proceedings are concerned, it
\nappears that petitioner came to be exonerated from Inquiry Case Nos.7
\nand 8 of 1992, whereas  in Inquiry Case No.4 i.e. 49 of 1994, charge
\nsheet was issued on 12.03.1993 and punishment by order dated
\n15.09.1998 in the form of a ‘cut’ from pension was imposed for
\nRs.2,000\/- for 12 months only. However, I noticed that in the
\nmeanwhile on the third occasion Departmental Promotion Committee was
\nconvened on 02.09.1995 which was ultimately adjourned to 12.09.1995.
\nAt that point of time DPC recommended to continue the name of the
\npetitioner in a sealed cover inspite of the fact that so far as
\ninquiries were concerned, the petitioner appears to have been
\nexonerated but the Departmental Promotion Committee was not satisfied
\nwith the overall performance. Committee also took into consideration
\nthe consistently bad confidential report of the petitioner. In this
\nview of the matter, whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief
\nfrom this Hon’ble Court under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution is the moot question.\n<\/p>\n
16.0
\n  The main thrust of the submissions is to the effect that the
\nconfidential report more particularly the remarks of the reporting
\nofficers would go to show that till April, 1992 the remarks are to
\nthe effect that the knowledge of subject matter is poor, capacity for
\ninterpretation for result and scientific data is poor etc. However,
\nfrom April, 1992 onwards all of a sudden the remarks in the
\nconfidential reports till the time the petitioner retired from
\nservices are found to be satisfactory. Relying on this petitioner
\nvehemently submitted that all of a sudden knowledge of subject matter
\nwould not become good if earlier the reporting officer has certified
\nit to be poor. He submitted that this itself goes to show that his
\ncase for promotion has not been considered in the right perspective
\nand the decisions so far have been actuated by bias and mala fides.
\nOn perusal of the the entire confidential record it is evident that
\ntill 1992 the overall assessment of the petitioner was found to be
\nvery poor whereas from 1992 onwards till the time he retired it is
\nfound to be satisfactory. At some places I have noticed that the
\nreporting officer has assessed knowledge of subject matter so far the
\npetitioner is concerned as good.\n<\/p>\n
17.0
\nWhenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of
\nmerit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter
\nof right by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on
\nwhich his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his
\nconfidential report, it is recorded that his services are
\n“satisfactory”. An officer may be capable of discharging
\nhis duties of the post held by him satisfactorily but he may not be
\nfit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can be effected,
\nit is a duty of the management to consider the case of the officer
\nconcerned on the basis of the relevant material. If promotion has
\nbeen denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordinarily the Court
\ncan issue a direction
\nto the management to consider the case of the officer concerned for
\npromotion. But it cannot issue a direction to promote the officer
\nconcerned to the higher post without giving an opportunity to the
\nmanagement to consider the question of promotion.\n<\/p>\n
18.0
\nIt is a settled law that the Court is not by its very nature
\ncompetent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes
\nnecessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the
\nmodern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the
\nresponsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being
\npromoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. The
\nduties of such posts may need skills of different kinds – scientific,
\ntechnical, financial, industrial, commercial, administrative,
\neducational etc.  As held by the Supreme Court in State
\nBank of India and Ors. vs. Mohd. Mynuddin reported
\nin AIR 1987 SC
\n1889, the
\nmethod of evaluation of the abilities or the competence of person to
\nbe selected for such posts have also become now-a-days very much
\nrefined and sophisticated and such evaluation should, therefore, in
\nthe public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual
\nor a committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the
\nrequirements of a given post to be nominated by the employer. Supreme
\nCourt has also further held that the process of selection adopted by
\nthem should always be honest and fair. It is only when the process of
\nselection is vitiated on the ground of bias, mala fides or any other
\nsimilar vitiating circumstance other considerations will arise. The
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee did not find the petitioner fit for
\npromotion on three occasions. I also do not find any substance in the
\nallegations of bias or mala fides urged against the members of the
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee.\n<\/p>\n
19.0
\nI may also quote the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Smt.
\nNutan Arvind vs. Union of India and Anr. reported
\nin AIR 1996 SC 3352
\nwherein
\nSupreme Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nThe DPC which is a high level committee, considered the merits of the
\nrespective candidates and the appellant, though considered, was not
\npromoted.  It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that
\none K.S. Rao was the officer at the relevant time to review the
\nperformance of the appellant whereas in fact one Menon had reviewed
\nit.  The latter was not competent to review the performance of the
\nappellant and to write the confidentials.  We are afraid we cannot go
\ninto that question.  It is for the DPC to consider at the time when
\nthe assessments of the respective candidates is made.  When a high
\nlevel committee had considered the respective merits of the
\ncandidates assessed the grading and considered their cases for
\npromotion, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC
\nas an appellate authority. The DPC would come to its own conclusion
\non the basis of review by an officer and whether he is or is not
\ncompetent to write the confidentials is for them to decide and call
\nfor report from the proper officer.  It had done that exercise and
\nfound the appellant not fit for promotion.  Thus we do not find any
\nmanifest error of law for interference.\n<\/p>\n
20.0
\n I may also quote Apex Court’s judgment in the case of
\nMir Ghulam Hussan and others vs. The Union of India and others<\/a>,
\nreported
\nin AIR 1973 SC
\n1138, wherein
\nSupreme Court has held in para:8 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“8.\n<\/p>\n
… The suggestion obviously sought to be made out at that stage was
\nthis that since there was nothing adverse against them, the
\npetitioners were entitled to be selected. This claim is, of course,
\ncompletely misconceived for the simple reason that promotion is not
\nmade on the basis of absence of complaint but on the basis of
\npositive merit. Absence of adverse remarks is no crieterion of the
\nquality of an officer.\n<\/p>\n
21.0
\n I
\nmay also quote Apex Court decision in case of Union
\nof India and others vs. Lt. General Rajendra Singh Kadyan reported
\nin AIR 2000 SC 2513
\nwherein
\nin para:26 Supreme Court has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“26.\n<\/p>\n
The ACR for the period 1-10-1997 to 31-1-1998 is to the effect that
\nhe considered him fit in every way to hold his present rank and also
\nto the next higher rank. On this basis, it is contended that the
\nChief of the Army Staff having recommended his case in the ACR as fit
\nfor promotion could not alter the same subsequently and give a
\nfinding that such a recommendation in ACR will have a limited effect.
\nThe position in law is that appraisal report or an annual
\nconfidential report is not the sole factor to be considered by the
\nselection authority but one of the matters to be taken note of by
\nsuch authority. We may advert to two decisions of this Court in this
\nregard, namely, AVM S. L. Chhabra v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (4)
\nSCC 441 and Union of India v. Samar Singh, (1996) 10 SCC 555.
\nTherefore, we are of the view that heavy reliance placed by the High
\nCourt on the ACRs to reach the conclusion otherwise is not justified.
\nIn deciding whether a post is a selection post or not, one of the
\ncriteria to be considered is if it involves a comparative assessment
\nof officers necessarily the element of selection is involved and,
\ntherefore, the post with which we are concerned is indeed a selection
\npost although not totally ignoring a senior.\n<\/p>\n
22.0
\nHaving considered the matter threadbare more particularly keeping in
\nmind that the petitioner has appeared as a party-in-person and would
\nobviously have limitations in presenting the case, I do not find any
\ngood ground or reason to direct the authorities to once again
\nconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
\nDeputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory Department, State of
\nGujarat, with retrospective effect.  In this view of the matter, no
\nrelief can be granted in favour of the petitioner, and, therefore,
\nboth the petitions fail and are hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n
23.0
\nIn view of the order passed in the writ petitions, Civil Applications
\nalso stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
Amit<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 Author: J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2056\/2007 23\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2056 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9943 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2056 of 2007 With CIVIL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6841,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011"},"wordCount":6841,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011","name":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T18:36:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-k-c-abraham-on-14-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs K.C.Abraham on 14 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}