RASHABDEV H JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a 'Naib Clerk' with the Battalion No. 1 of the Gujarat State Home Guards-respondent no. 1 herein w.e.f. 24.07.1989 and since then he is working under the Administrative control of respondents nos. 1, 2 & 3. As per the seniority list of the Naib Clerk published on 01.01.1997 by the respondents, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 8 in the said list. The respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 25.04.2000, communicated the petitioner the adverse remarks passed against him in his Annual Confidential Report in respect of the years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 for misguiding his Senior Officers. The petitioner submitted his reply to the adverse remarks passed against him by the respondents. The respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 23.06.2000 intimated the petitioner that the reply filed by him is not acceptable and, therefore, the adverse remarks passed against him in the Annual Confidential Report stand as it is. 2.1. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 28.07.2000 before the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, inter alia contending that the adverse remarks against him were communicated almost after five years. However, the respondents vide order dated 10.01.2001 promoted 12 persons to the post of Havaldar Clerk / Quarter Master, out of which 5 persons were junior to the petitioner and did not consider the case of the petitioner on account of adverse remarks passed against him in respect of the years 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1997-98. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95 and 1995-95 were communicated to the petitioner on 25.04.2000 and they were well within time. However, the petitioner had not made any representation against the said adverse remarks in respect of the years 1993-94, 1996-97 and 1997-98, within the prescribed time limit. The representation in respect of the adverse remarks for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were considered by the Accepting Authority and the same were forwarded to the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the promotion. 3.1. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was also issued memorandum on 10.08.1994 for dereliction of duty, remaining absent without leave and making false allegations against his superior officer. Apart from that when the written warning was given to the petitioner on 12.09.1994, the petitioner had accepted his mistake and had also given an undertaking that he will not repeat the same in future. Though several warnings were given to the petitioner to improve, the petitioner has not improved and, therefore, the respondents had communicated adverse remarks against the petitioner.