Gujarat High Court
The Divisional Controller, Gujarat ... vs The President, Vinayak Employees Union on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10896 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
Versus
THE PRESIDENT, VINAYAK EMPLOYEES UNION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference (IT) No.4 of 2023 dated 12.03.2025, whereby the learned Reference Court has set aside the punishment imposed in the departmental inquiry of stoppage of five years' increments with future effect, and directed the present petitioner to pay the difference amount with interest at the rate of 6%.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was serving on the post of conductor with the petitioner corporation, and on 26.11.2017 the bus and one motorcycle dashed with each other, and a criminal case was filed against the driver. The corporation also issued the chargesheet on 14.08.2018 and, after holding the departmental inquiry, imposed the punishment of stoppage of five Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined increments with future effect, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced, allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the inquiry officer acted as both prosecutor and judge, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in not considering the seriousness or gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent, who, without taking proper care, drove the heavy vehicle. It is submitted that because of the accident, which was caused due to the negligence of the respondent, a huge amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Accident Claim. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia submits that without framing the issue with regard to the departmental inquiry, the learned Court has committed an error in allowing the Reference in favour of the respondent, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the petition is required to be allowed.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate and, on referring to the reasons, it emerges that with regard to the accident which occurred on 26.11.2017, the chargesheet was issued and the departmental inquiry was initiated. On 14.08.2018, the chargesheet was issued by the officer, namely R.H. Vada, who conducted the inquiry, performed the role of presenting officer, and imposed the punishment. It emerges that the inquiry officer, who performed the function of the prosecutor as well as that of the judge, acted against the basic principles of natural justice, which would ultimately invalidate the departmental proceedings.
6. This Court has also considered the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670, wherein it was held that the issue as to whether the Inquiry Officer, who is expected to act independently and impartially in a disciplinary inquiry, has assumed the role of a prosecutor, is essentially a question of fact. Such determination must be made based on the facts and the proceedings of the particular case. In a relevant paragraph of the judgment, the Apex Court enunciated the principle as under:
"33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined issue summarised the principles in paragraph 16 which is to the following effect:
"16. We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-
appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in- chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross- examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may."
7. The Apex Court has also referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, reported in ILR (2004) MP 821, wherein the judgment was authored by R.V. Raveendran, C.J. In that case, the Court had the occasion to consider the issue of vitiation of inquiry proceedings when the Inquiry Officer departs from his neutral role and assumes the character of a prosecutor. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
8. "One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets:
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,
(iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator,
(v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10896/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others,
(vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations.
If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated"
9. Considering the above decisions as well as the facts involved in the present case, in the opinion of this Court, when the inquiry officer had performed the role of prosecutor as well as judge, and had also issued the show cause notice, filed the chargesheet, held the departmental inquiry, filed the report, and ordered the dismissal, it would vitiate the proceedings, and therefore, the learned Reference Court is justified in setting aside the punishment imposed during the departmental proceedings.
10. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:20 IST 2025