Rahul Lalitbhai Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Rahul Lalitbhai Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat on 14 August, 2025

Author: A. S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/5000/2014                                       CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                                                               Reserved On   : 06/08/2025
                                                                               Pronounced On : 14/08/2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/Special Civil Application No. 5000 of 2014
                                                                  With
                                             R/Special Civil Application No. 10635 of 2017

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA                            Sd/-    .
                      and
                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI                           Sd/-    .
                      ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== RAHUL LALITBHAI TRIVEDI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

========================================================== Appearance:

MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR AAKASH GUPTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR GAUTAM JOSHI SENIOR ADVOCATE With MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI COMMON CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi, appearing for the respondent - High Court, has submitted that the present writ petition has become infructuous in view of the order dated 03.08.2016 imposing a penalty of withholding 05 increments without future effect, upon the petitioner.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined

2. Learned Advocate Mr. B.J. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, however, has submitted that some of the prayers still survive in Special Civil Application No. 5000 of 2014.

3. The petitioner (since deceased), now represented by his legal heirs, was serving as a Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Garbada, District Dahod. He was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for which a charge sheet dated 25.02.2010 was served upon him, for holding a departmental inquiry into various charges. After holding necessary departmental proceedings, the charges were proved against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer. After considering the Inquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order/notification dated 28.09.2011. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No. 17662 of 2011. By the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of punishment; however, liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent to take recourse to the remedy under the law, including to hold a de novo inquiry. The petitioner assailed the punishment of dismissal by filing the captioned writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.5000 of 2014.

4. Accordingly, a fresh Memorandum of Charge was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2013. The petitioner participated in the said inquiry, and the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, by the order dated 03.08.2016, a penalty of withholding 05 increments without future effect was imposed upon him. The same is challenged in the captioned petition being Special Civil Application No. 10635 of 2017.

5. After passing the order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner amended Special Civil Application No.5000 of 2014 by incorporating the prayer Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined (a-1) and (b-1) seeking quashing of the order of change in headquarters. Thus, the captioned Special Civil Application No.5000 of 2014 has become infructuous, since the order of dismissal does not survive, and the prayer for change in headquarters will also not survive at this stage.

6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. B.J. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner ought to have been suspended from service, and thereafter, the de novo inquiry could have been held as per the directions issued by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 22.03.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.17662 of 2011. He has submitted that since the same was not done, the punishment of imposition of withholding of 05 increments without future effect is also required to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the entire period of suspension is also required to be treated as on duty, and the communication dated 27.02.2017 treating the period of suspension as such is required to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that, once the Division Bench of this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, has set aside the notification of dismissal, the subsequent action of the respondent - High Court in imposing the punishment of stoppage of 05 increments is illegal. No further submission has been advanced.

7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi has urged that the impugned order of punishment imposing stoppage of 05 increments may not be interfered with since it is recorded therein that the petitioner has committed numerous irregularities while he was serving as a Civil Judge. It is submitted that the earlier order of dismissal was set aside on the technical grounds, and since liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent - High Court to start a de novo inquiry, a fresh charge sheet was issued upon the petitioner on 27.11.2013. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was held and on the report of Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Judges, the punishment of stoppage of 05 increments was imposed. It is further submitted that, since the departmental inquiry culminated into the imposition of punishment, the suspension period was not treated as on duty under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. It is submitted that there is no contention raised in the writ petition alleging any violation of the statutory rules, and hence, the impugned order may not be interfered with since there is no error alleged in decision making process. It is thus urged that the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10635 of 2017 may be rejected, and Special Civil Application No. 5000 of 2014 may be disposed of as having become infructuous.

8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

9. The facts established from the pleadings are that the petitioner, while serving as a Civil Judge, was subjected to departmental proceedings vide charge sheet dated 25.02.2010 for committing various irregularities. The same culminated into the issuance of a notification dated 28.09.2011 dismissing him from service, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 17662 of 2011. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 22.03.2013 by setting aside the notification dated 28.09.2011 reserving liberty to initiate de novo inquiry.

10. A bare reading of the aforesaid judgment would reveal that the notification was set aside on the technical grounds, and since liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent - High Court to take recourse to the remedy available under the law, including a de novo inquiry, a fresh Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined charge sheet was issued on 27.11.2013. The petitioner has accepted the aforesaid order and has not assailed the same before the higher forum.

11. The following irregularities and discrepancies were found to have been committed by the petitioner during his tenure:

"[3.1] During his tenure at Anand, the following irregularities / discrepancies were found to have been committed by the Delinquent -- Officer.

1. That several cases were shown to be disposed off by way of judgment but no written judgments were found.

2. That several cases were shown to be disposed off by the Delinquent Officer by way of judgment but the Delinquent - Officer have not signed the judgments.

3. That several cases were shown to be disposed off by judgment but the judgments were written without taking evidence of the complainant or any of the witnesses.

4. That several cases have been disposed off in Lok Adalat by the Delinquent Officer and in all those cases the Shirastedar had made a note of "fine taken", the judgments/orders were not signed by the Delinquent -Officer and thereby the fine was accepted without writing judgment / order.

5. That several cases disposed off in Lok Adalat but no entries have been made for the fine taken in the Account Register.

6. That in so many cases, the Delinquent - Officer had not signed the deposition of the witnesses taken by the Delinquent - Officer.

7. That in the further statement of the accused, the Delinquent Officer had taken the signature of the accused without noting the reply of the question put by the Delinquent Officer and also signed the blank Further Statement.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined

8. That proceedings of the cases are not signed by the Delinquent - Officer.

9. That many application, pursis or documents are not signed by the Delinquent documents are not exhibited."

12. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceedings and was given ample opportunities to put forward his case. Ultimately, the charges were proved, and vide order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of withholding 05 increments without future effect.

13. Unquestionably, the said punishment, which is imposed under Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, is a minor penalty. The same is assailed by the petitioner in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10635 of 2017. The petitioner was also afforded a personal hearing by the Committee of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The suspension period of the petitioner was also treated as such after giving him an opportunity of hearing from 03.12.2009 to 18.04.2016.

14. The petitioner, neither in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10635 of 2017, nor before us has alleged that the disciplinary proceedings held in violation of the statutory provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 governing the departmental proceedings. The Apex Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs State Of Punjab, AIR 2025 SC 620, has reiterated as under:

"33. Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined over a period of time. Law is well settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated."

15. Thus, it is no more res integra, that the judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is very restricted and is confined to the decision making process. In the instant case, we do not find that the proceedings are held in violation of principles of natural justice or statutory rules. We do not find that the punishment of stoppage of 05 increments without future effect is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

16. As far as the order dated 03.08.2016, treating the suspension period from 03.12.2009, the committee comprising of two Hon'ble Judges vide its comprehensive Report dated 14.12.2016, has opined that the suspension period shall be treated only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and his pay and allowances are restricted to the subsistence allowance. A prior show cause notice dated 29.09.2016 was also issued Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined to the petitioner calling upon him as to why the suspension period should not be treated as such. The committee had also heard him personally, and was also represented by learned advocate Mr.J.T.Trivedi. After threadbare consideration of the facts, and Rule 70 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Payment During Suspension) Rules, 2002 and Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the Committee has passed the order. The relevant observations of the Committee are as under:

"8. Thus, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the G.C.S. (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement imposed upon a government servant under suspension is set aside and the case is remitted for the further inquiry or with any other directions, the order of suspension would continue in force from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and would remain in force until further orders. Under sub-rule (4) to Rule 5 where the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law, and the Disciplinary Authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the same allegations, the Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the government servant would continue to remain under suspension until further orders. Thus, the action of placing a government servant under suspension was in tune with sub rule (4) of Rule 5 of the G.C.S. (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.

11. In terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 70 where the competent authority is of the opinion that the government servant has been fully exonerated or that his suspension was wholly unjustified; he would be entitled to full pay and allowances. In all other cases, the government servant would be given such pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe. Under sub rule (5), in such cases, the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless the competent authority directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5000/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025 undefined

12. In the present case, the delinquent judicial officer has neither been fully exonerated nor was his suspension wholly unjustified. His case, therefore, would not fall under sub rule (2) of Rule 70. The period of suspension will therefore have to be regulated in terms of sub rule (3) of Rule 70. Considering the nature of charges and the fact that upon completion of the suspension, the delinquent government servant has been visited with the penalty of withholding of five increments, this would not be a fit case where he should be paid further pay and allowances for the period during which he was placed under suspension. While so suggesting, it would also be inappropriate to treat the entire period as spent not on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits."

17. We do not find any illegality and infirmity in the report of the Committee. The Committee has precisely applied the foregoing Rules in the given facts of the present case.

18. On an overall analysis of the facts and law, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10635 of 2017 is dismissed. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5000 of 2014 is disposed of as having become infructous. Rule discharged.

                                                                                              Sd/-       .
                                                                                        (A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

                                                                                              Sd/-      .
                                                                                      (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
                      MVP




                                                                 Page 9 of 9

Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Thu Aug 14 2025                   Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:04:40 IST 2025