Gujarat High Court
The Principal Commissioner vs Vanitaben Mohanbhai Patel D/O ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14444 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14444 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14445 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14445 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
=================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & ANR.
Versus
VANITABEN MOHANBHAI PATEL D/O MOHANBHAI PATEL
=================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MS TRIVEDI(939) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)
1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners challenge ex pate final orders dated 08.12.2017 passed in O.A. Nos. 120/567/2017 and 120/540/2017, respectively, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby, "the Tribunal" has directed to keep the departmental proceedings, subsequent to issue of Memo dated 10.10.2017, in abeyance till one month after completion of recording of Statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). It was further directed that as soon as the criminal proceedings, as stated above, is complete, the applicants in the respective O.A. were directed to inform the department about the same and within next one month, the inquiry may commence.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. M. S. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respective respondents waives service of notice of Rule. Considering the controversy involved in the matters, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined matters are taken up for final hearing today.
3. Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, for the petitioners submitted that even if "the Tribunal" was to allow any proceedings without hearing the other side, it could not have been done; at the same time, he submitted that when criminal proceedings are pending against the original applicants before Criminal Court, they were issued Charge Memo dated 10.10.2017. He further submitted that criminal proceedings as also the departmental proceedings, based on same facts, can go simultaneously and there is no prohibition as such. Therefore, according to his submission, "the Tribunal" could not have allowed the O.As., that too, ex parte, even without issuance of notice to the petitioners herein. Therefore, he submitted that the orders impugned herein, are required to be quashed and set aside and the matters be remanded back to "the Tribunal".
4. As against that, Mr. M. S. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respective respondents has submitted that these petitions, directly filed before this Court, without approaching "the Tribunal" by way of review application, should not be entertained. He further submitted that impugned orders came to be passed in the year 2017 and these petitions have come to be filed before this Court nearly after two years, till that period, they respected the orders and therefore, no interference is required in these petitions.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined 4.1 He has further submitted that against issuance of Charge Memo, the respective respondents have made representations to the Disciplinary Authority and they have yet not decided and therefore, respondents were constrained to file applications before the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the orders passed by "the Tribunal" have lived for nearly seven years and more, and when criminal trial is also proceeding, this Court may not interfere with the orders passed by "the Tribunal". He has further requested that Disciplinary Authority may be directed to decide the representations of the respondents.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and going through the impugned orders as also the documents annexed with the petitions, it emerges that "the Tribunal", not only, has not considered whether simultaneous departmental proceedings as also the criminal proceedings against the delinquents can be permitted or not, has straightway, without issuance of even notice to the respondents, ordered to keep in abeyance the departmental proceedings till one month after completion of recording of Statement under Section 313 of "the Code".
5.1 The submission made by the learned advocate for the respondents that without approaching "the Tribunal" straightway, petitions are filed by the petitioners, cannot be entertained for the Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined reason that since O.As. themselves are allowed, that too, without hearing the petitioners herein, there is no need to approach even "the Tribunal" by the petitioners. Though, challenging the impugned orders in these petitions, petitioners have consumed some time, it will not deter this Court from determining the issue posed before it for consideration. Though, notice in these petitions were issued for final disposal, making it returnable in September 2019, they could not be disposed of for nearly six years. However, that does not mean that ex parte final orders are to be sustained for all time to come.
5.2 The request made by the learned advocate for the respective respondents that their representations, made to the Disciplinary Authority, should be decided first before appointing any Inquiry Officer, is required to be rejected for the reason that Disciplinary Authority is not obliged under any provision of law to decide such representations, if at all they are made. If that is so, the respective respondents may have recourse to law, if at all it permits.
5.3 As such, from the tenor of the orders impugned, passed by the "the Tribunal", it appears that prayer made by the respective respondents was to defer the departmental proceedings on the ground that representations made are not decided till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, since representations dated 23.10.2017 are not decided. So, their attempt appears to be to get the representations decided by filing aforesaid proceedings before "the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14444/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined Tribunal". Not only that, from the impugned orders there appears no reasons assigned why departmental proceedings, which could not be yet commenced because of the present orders, should be stayed till the pendency of criminal proceedings against the respondents herein.
6. In that view of the matter, these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 08.12.2017 passed in O.A. Nos. 120/567/2017 and 120/540/2017, respectively, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, allowing the O.As., in respective petitions, are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to "the Tribunal" for decision afresh thereon, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
6.1 Connected Civil Applications stand disposed of.
[ Umesh A. Trivedi, J. ] [ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ] hiren/5tss2425 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Fri Apr 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 07 21:35:33 IST 2025