# .HE 1 Special Civil Application No 2442 of 95 Date of decision: 11/12/95 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? DHARMENDRASINH K GOHIL vs STATE OF GUJART Appearence: MR RJ OZA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA or Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA f r RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA fo Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR D BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for etitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for R spondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA AMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Pe itioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for Res ondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BA BHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Peti ioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for d Coram : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER ORAL JUDGEMENT Rule. Mr.Bambhania appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this matter is taken up to day for final hearing. This petition is filed against the action by which adverse remarks were made in the service records of the petitioner for the period between April 1 1991 and February 15, 1992. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bhavnagar District, Bhavnagar, respondent no.2 herein. The respondent no.2 by his order dt. February 3, 1994 rejected the appeal on the ground that as per the the remarks made by the officer who had written confidential report, adverse entries were justified. He on his part did not consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petiti ner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and ha dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseb the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petit oner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and h s dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisse y the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the peti ioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and as dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismiss by the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the pet tioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismis eby the petitioner and has dismisseby t by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government but the State Government has disposed of the same on the ground that nothing at their end was required to be done. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this court. Various contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions. In view of the fact that the appellate authority, namely, the respondent has not considered all the grounds on which the petitioner felt himself aggrieved by the order passed by the officer who had put the adverse remarks against the petitioner, it is directed that the second respondent will hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after recording reasons. The petition is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly dispo ed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is a cordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed o by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accord ngly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by aking rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made abso uteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by makin rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteo is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disp sed of by makinof ent with no order as to costs. I may clarify that the action of not promoting the petitioner was sought to be justified by placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the Chitnish to Collector, Bhavnagar, but I am not expressing any opinion on that aspect. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The respondent no.2 will decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this court. DS. *****