NARENDRASINH BAHADURSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for Mr. Dipen Desai learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.K.L.Pandya learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities. Respondent no. 6 is served and his affidavit-in-reply dated 19.1.2000 is on record.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was working as Police Inspector at the relevant time, has challenged the action of the authorities of withdrawing the awards/ rewards given to him for his meritorious service. The foundation of this petition is the malafide alleged against Mr.P.P.Agja, I.P.S., who at the relevant time was working as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and who is joined as Respondent No:6 in the petition.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that, after joining the service as Police Sub Inspector in the year 1978, the petitioner had performed his duty with all devotion and dedication and considering his outstanding performance, the competent authority had awarded awards/rewards to him from time to time and his Annual Confidential Reports were also outstanding. While the petitioner was working at Bhavnagar, one Mr.P.P.Agja,(Respondent:6), who was working as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Junagadh Range, at Junagadh, under whose administrative control the District Superintendent of Police Bhavnagar functions, had some grudge against the petitioner. The said officer had developed bias against the petitioner and therefore, he was creating all sorts of hurdles in the service of petitioner. At that juncture, the District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar had sent proposal to the Director General of Police, through D.I.G., Junagadh, for considering the name of the petitioner for recommendation for President's medal. From that stage, Respondent No:6 started writing to the authorities, not to consider the case of the petitioner for President's medal. Not only, he did not approve that proposal of District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar, for which, he can be said to be competent considering this position, but he further wrote letter on 19.2.1997 to his higher authorities how the work of petitioner was not satisfactory according to him. Even this action can be said to be well within his competence. However soon after writing the said letter dated 19.2.1997, Respondent No:6 came to be transferred from the post of D.I.G. Junagadh Range to D.I.G. Rajkot Range and on 22.2.1997 he left the charge. Whether after hearing about his transfer and before leaving the charge, he wrote letter dated 19.2.1997 is an aspect for which no material is on record and to that extent there is a gray area, but in any case, couple of days before leaving the charge of the post of D.I.G., Junagadh Range, he had written to his higher authorities, in effect, complaining against the petitioner.