Gujarat High Court
Jagabhai Nopabhai Kodarvi vs State Of Gujarat on 10 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1075/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1075 of 2025
==========================================================
JAGABHAI NOPABHAI KODARVI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 10/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shivam Majmudar for learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent-State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner questions the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the order of the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Bhuj, dated 17.02.2022, whereby the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur had been directed to consider the representation preferred by the present petitioner and take an appropriate decision. The petitioner also seeks to question an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur, dated 27.04.2016, more particularly insofar as a period between the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement has been treated as extraordinary leave.
3. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar and learned AGP Mr. Pathak, it would appear to this Court Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 22:46:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1075/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2025 undefined that the issue requires to be relegated to the State Government i.e. the Director General of Police for taking an appropriate decision, more particular for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
3.1 It would appear that the petitioner who was appointed as Armed Police Constable vide an order dated 17.07.1976 in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, came to be terminated from service vide an order dated 18.07.2005. It would appear that the allegation against the petitioner being that the petitioner had produced a forged School Leaving Certificate for getting entry in service and whereas for the very selfsame purpose an FIR also appears to have lodged against the petitioner which had ultimately resulted in a Criminal Trial being held against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Danta. It would appear that against the order of termination of service by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police and whereas vide order dated _.11.2011, the Director General of Police had set aside the order of termination from service and directed reinstatement, more particularly subject to the final outcome of the Criminal Trial. It would appear that the Director General of Police had further directed that the period from date of termination i.e. from 18.07.2005 till the date of reinstatement post order dated _.11.2011, would be considered as per the final decision of the Criminal Trial.
3.2 It appears that in the Criminal Trial, the present petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2015. It also appears that in the interregnum, i.e. on 30.06.2015, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
3.3 It would appear that upon the petitioner being acquitted by the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 22:46:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1075/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court, and the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation, issue with regard to considering the period between the date of termination to date of reinstatement had arisen and whereas vide an order dated 27.04.2016, the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha had decided that the said period should be treated as period on extraordinary leave. It would further appear that against such an order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Inspector General, Border Range, and whereas it would also appear that the petitioner had also followed the same with certain representations inter alia seeking that the period in question should be treated as period in duty.
3.4 It would appear that ultimately vide a communication dated 17.02.2022, the office of the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Bhuj, had relegated the issue to the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha for taking appropriate action and whereas it is being aggrieved by the said order as well as the order whereby the period in question was treated as period on extraordinary leave that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3.5 While both sides have made extensive arguments, to this Court it would appear that while the petitioner may prima facie be entitled to state that since the petitioner had been acquitted by the Criminal Court, therefore the natural consequences thereof would be that the period in question should be treated as period in duty. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Pathak would strongly rely upon provision of Rule 70 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service, Deputation out of India, Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 2002 and would submit that the period in question should be treated as period of absence from duty, more particularly since the petitioner had not been fully exonerated by the learned Trial Court. Though it is contended by the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 22:46:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1075/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2025 undefined learned for the petitioner that the order of the learned Trial Court clearly reflects that the petitioner has been fully exonerated, yet, at this stage this Court refrains itself from making any opinion thereupon.
4. To this Court it would appear that the above issues i.e. whether the period in question should be treated as period in duty or not and whether Rule 70 of the said Rules would be applicable at all and to what extent, should all receive consideration by an appropriate authority and whereafter if required, the same could be appropriately scrutinized by this Court. Under such circumstances, the following directions are issued.
(i) The Director General of Police, Gujarat State, shall consider the case of the petitioner, more particularly shall consider whether order dated 27.04.2016 is in accordance with law and in accordance with the direction issued by the Director General of Police vide order dated _.11.2011.
(ii) The Director General of Police shall also examine the order of acquittal dated 15.10.2015 and shall take into consideration that whether there are any mitigating circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to claim that the period in question should be treated as period in duty.
(iii) The Director General of Police shall also take into consideration the scope and import of Rule 70 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Joining Time, (Joining Time, Foreign Service, Deputation out of India, Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 2002 to decide whether the same would have any applicability in the instant case or not.
(iv) The Director General of Police shall take an appropriate decision on the above aspects within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 22:46:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1075/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/06/2025 undefined of this order and whereas an appropriate decision shall be intimated to the present petitioner.
(v) In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision which would be taken by the Director General of Police, it would be open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the same in accordance with law.
5. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as partly allowed. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Wed Jun 11 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 11 22:46:56 IST 2025