JERAMBHAI KHETABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside the order dtd. 29/7/2021 passed by the respondent authorities and at the same time, seeking direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the period between 23/1/2018 to 28/2/2018 to be period of duty as the respondents have treated such period as Leave Without Pay despite the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has actually discharged the duty for the aforesaid period.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent authorities the fact that in fact the petitioner has discharged his duty during the days between the aforesaid period and for that purpose the petitioner also has produced relevant documents. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the Annexure-J which is a statement of the petitioner recorded on 25/1/2018 during the course of investigation. Over and above, the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to the document at Annexure-A alongwith the additional affidavit to indicate that on 23/1/2018 the petitioner was not even allotted any duty. Despite that, by considering the fact that the petitioner was found absent from duty as during the period as Leave Without Pay. Learned advocate has also drawn attention of this Court to an earlier order dtd. 12/3/2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16165 of 2020 and submitted that this Court has directed the petitioner to make appropriate representation, despite this the case of the petitioner as such has not considered.

(3.) The Court has taken into consideration the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has retired as Armed Head Constable with the Baroda City Police. Against him, it was established that the petitioner for a period between 23/1/2018 to 28/2/2018 was not found on duty and hence, the period of 37 days was sanctioned as Leave Without Pay. The Court has taken into consideration the argument advanced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that the petitioner was on duty during this period as the statement dtd. 25/1/2018 was recorded on the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Police Control Room, Vadodara. It would be pertinent to observe that such statement was recorded of the petitioner in his capacity as a witness and therefore, such presence cannot be treated to be duty.