C/SCA/8632/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8632 of 2025 ========================================================== JAYESH PRAVINCHANDRA MODI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MITUL GAUTAM, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 31/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Vyoma Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mitul Gautam appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner inter alia raises a grievance as regards the services of the petitioner not being confirmed on the post of State Tax Inspector more particularly on the ground of a pending departmental inquiry in spite of an order of the Hon’ble Division Bench whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench had desired that the inquiry should be completed preferably within a period of four months from the date of the order. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Ms.Jhaveri and learned AGP Mr.Gautam, it would appear to C/SCA/8632/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 this Court that the petitioner had been appointed as a Commercial Tax Inspector for a 5 years’ fixed term with a fixed salary vide an order dated 07.12.2013 and whereas, it appears that the respondents had received certain instructions that the petitioner had received salary of Rs.11,500/- for the part time services rendered by him between 7:00 am to 9:30 am. 3.1. It would appear that under such circumstances, the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner and whereas, the same had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.7166/2019 and whereas, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 03.02.2022 inter alia noting that the period of only three and a half months was remaining for the five year period to come to an end, the impugned order of termination had been set aside with a direction to reinstate the petitioner for the remaining term with certain other benefits. 3.2. It would appear that the State had challenged the same before the Hon’ble Division Bench and whereas, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 02.08.2022 in Letters Patent C/SCA/8632/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 Appeal No.964/2022 had been pleased to modify the directions of the learned Coordinate Bench to the extent that the petitioner be reinstated before 22.08.2022 and whereas, he would be continued for the remaining period even thereafter and whereas, it would be open for the State to initiate departmental inquiry and whereas, in case the same is initiated then the same shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. 3.3. The grievance being raised is that in spite of such an order, on one hand, the respondents have not completed the departmental inquiry for approximately two and a half years and on the other hand, the petitioner is still required to continue on fixed salary basis and whereas, other similarly situated persons have been absorbed in regular pay scale and also have received the benefit of promotion. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record including the orders passed by the learned Coordinate Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench, it would appear to this Court that the Hon’ble Division Bench vide decision dated 02.08.2022 whereby the decision of the C/SCA/8632/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 learned Coordinate Bench dated 03.02.2022 had been modified, had while reinstating the petitioner, desired that the inquiry may be concluded within a period of four months. The Hon’ble Division Bench had also, at that relevant point of time, not passed any consequential order whereby in absence of concluding the departmental inquiry within a reasonable time period, the petitioner would be declared to be entitled for certain other benefits. 4.1. Thus, it would appear to this Court that as of now, the best course of action would be to ensure that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner is concluded at the earliest and whereas, upon the final decision taken in the departmental inquiry, further orders could be passed. 4.2. This Court had directed the learned AGP to take instructions as regards the reasonable time period within which the departmental inquiry could be concluded and whereas, learned AGP Mr.Gautam under instruction of one Ms.Urmi Vaja, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (I), Vigilance, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, would submit that the departmental inquiry could be concluded within a period of three months i.e. 90 days from date of receipt of the order. Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/8632/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 5. Having regard to such a position, to this Court, while directing the respondents to complete the departmental inquiry within a stipulated period of time, also clarifying the consequence of not completion, would meet with the ends of justice. Hence the following directions:- (i) The respondents are directed to conclude the departmental inquiry against the present petitioner on or before 15.11.2025 albeit after giving appropriate opportunity to the present petitioner at all stages as per the extant rules governing the same. (ii) In case the departmental inquiry is not concluded by 15.11.2025, then the respondents shall absorb the petitioner in regular services with regular pay scale and all other consequential benefits shall be made available to the petitioner. 6. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 31/07/2025 18:49:20