Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Abdul Kasam on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/152/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 152 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
ABDUL KASAM
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- employer under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1990, by the 6th Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot. This judgment partly allowed the appeal filed by the employee- respondent herein, which challenged the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1987 dated 15.05.1990. The challenge was limited to the denial of back-wages and the extent of the punishment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status in the suit.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/152/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
3. The plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1987 for declaration and injunction against the order passed by the Commandant RPF, Rajkot removing him from service vide order dated 05.02.1986.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working as a Constable, RPF at Sikka Out Post of Rajkot Division. The charge leveled against him was that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 04.07.1984 to 28.12.1984 and again from 08.05.1985 until the issuing of the Charge Sheet dated 23.07.1985.
5. An inquiry was held, wherein the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the plaintiff to be proved, leading to the final order of removal from service dated 05.02.1986.
6. Against the removal order, the plaintiff filed the suit.
7. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, vide order dated 15.05.1990, allowed the suit, holding the order of removal from service to be unconstitutional and against the provisions of law, and directed the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff and impose a lesser punishment.
8. Aggrieved by the part of the Trial Court's order concerning the punishment and denial of back-wages, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1990. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, partly allowed the appeal and modified the punishment of Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/152/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined reduction of pay by two stages for two years from with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect. The First Appellate Court, however, did not interfere with the denial of back-wages. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the Union of India - employer.
9. This Court, vide order dated 19.09.2003, admitted the present Appeal on the following Substantial Question of Law:
"Whether the First Appellate Court has, having upheld the guilt established against the delinquent, jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority?"
10. Learned advocate for the defendant/appellant principally argued that the Appellate Court erred in partly confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. It was submitted that both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the punishment orders, especially after holding that the charges leveled against the plaintiff were proved.
11. It was further contended that the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment order if the charges are held to be proved, and that the punishment for proved misconduct in a paramilitary body like the Railway Protection Force (RPF) should not be interfered with.
12. None appeared for the respondent herein - original plaintiff.
13. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, and having considered the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/152/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Appellate Court, along with the plaint and annexed documents, the fact remains that the plaintiff, was working as a Constable at the Sikka Out Post.
14. The plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 05.02.1986. He filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1987, and the Civil Court, vide order dated 15.05.1990, ordered his reinstatement but with a direction to impose a lesser punishment.
15. Accordingly, the defendant reinstated the plaintiff on 15.07.1990 (he reported for duty on 20.07.1990) and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages low for the period of 2 years, with cumulative effect. The intervening period from removal to reinstatement, i.e., from 05.02.1986 to 19.07.1990, was treated as non-qualifying service, i.e., 'No work no pay'.
16. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1990. By the judgment dated 26.07.2002, the punishment was modified from reduction of pay by two stages for 2 years with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect with continuity in service but without back wages.
17. The charge leveled against the plaintiff was that he remained unauthorizedly absent for two distinct periods, which led to the initiation of departmental proceedings.
18. The Appellate Court held that the penalty of reduction of pay by Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/152/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined two stages low for the period of 2 years with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct, particularly since the intervening period of absence had already been treated as non-qualifying service. The Court correctly held that the plaintiff had merely remained absent in an unauthorized manner, and the penalty should be proportionate.
19. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly ordered the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for two years without future effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not awarded any back-wages. It has also come on record that the plaintiff was subsequently removed from service on 04.03.1993 (order received 08.03.1993) in an unrelated misconduct.
In view of these facts, the Appellate Court, having upheld the guilt established against the delinquent, had the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority to ensure proportionality.
20. In view of the same, the present Second Appeal is dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) RAJAT YADAV Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:15 IST 2025