Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Jagdishsingh Sarnamsingh on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 154 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
JAGDISHSINGH SARNAMSINGH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK 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. 59 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. 846 of 1981 dated 21.02.1990. The challenge was limited to the denial of back-wages, as the Civil Suit filed by the employee had already been allowed, and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status in the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 846 of 1981, for declaration and injunction against the order passed by the Security Officer, Western Railway, removing him from service vide Memo No. SOAE/40/5/9/RJT, dated 28.06.1980.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was served with a Charge-sheet dated 31.05.1979, by the Assistant Security Officer, Western Railway, Rajkot, for being absent from duty on sick-leave from 16.03.1979 to 18.03.1979. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he was thereafter issued a Discharge Certificate dated 26.03.1979, with the remark that the plaintiff was absent since 19.03.1979. Subsequently, an inquiry was held, wherein the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the plaintiff to be proved and, by an order dated 27.11.1979, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with future effect.
5. The plaintiff contended that, upon being served with a show cause notice and having replied to it, the Security Officer, Ajmer, without affording the plaintiff an opportunity of hearing, passed the order dated 28.06.1980, removing him from service.
6. Against the removal order, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Chief Security Officer, Western Railway, who rejected the appeal vide order dated 11.12.1980. The plaintiff then filed the suit against this order.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
7. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement at Exh. 22. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exh. 20. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court 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. However, the Trial Court confirmed the punishment regarding the stoppage of increment for two years with future effect imposed vide the Assistant Security Officer's order dated 27.11.1979.
8. Aggrieved by the finding of the Trial Court's order declaring the stoppage of increment for two years as legal, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1990. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the evidence, partly allowed the appeal and modified the punishment of stoppage of increment to the extent of without future effect. The First Appellate Court, however, did not interfere with the Trial Court's order concerning the denial of back-wages. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the Union of India - employer.
9. This Court, vide order dated 02.07.2025, 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 the Appellate Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined Court ought to have realized that the Trial Court itself erred in exercising jurisdiction not vested in it by law by interfering with the punishment order imposed by the disciplinary authority and, as such, should have dismissed the appeal, setting aside the entire order passed by the Trial Court.
11. It was argued that both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the punishment orders. They erred in assuming a jurisdiction not vested in them by law, especially after holding that the charges leveled against the plaintiff were proved.
12. 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. It was argued that, considering the law governing the conduct and discipline of a paramilitary body like the Railway Protection Force (RPF), which the plaintiff served, the punishment for proved misconduct should have been removal from the Force.
13. None appeared for the respondent herein - original plaintiff.
14. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, and having considered the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, along with the plaint and annexed documents, the fact remains that the plaintiff was working as a Rakshak at the HAPA post of Rajkot Division.
15. The plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 28.06.1980. He filed Civil Suit No. 846 of 1981, and the Civil Court, Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined vide order dated 21.02.1990, ordered his reinstatement but with a direction to impose a lesser punishment.
16. Accordingly, the defendant reinstated the plaintiff on 30.05.1990 and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years, with cumulative effect. The period between 15.07.1980 to 29.05.1990 was treated as qualifying service for all purposes except back-wages.
17. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1990 for back-wages and a lesser punishment. By the judgment dated 26.07.2002, the punishment was modified from stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect.
18. The fact remains that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, and the charge leveled against him was that he remained absent without any report. Initially, he reported sick from 16.03.1979 to 18.03.1979, but thereafter, he remained unauthorizedly absent from the hospital from 19.03.1979. The Assistant Divisional Medical Officer issued a discharge certificate dated 26.03.1979 remarking on his absence since 19.03.1979, which led to the initiation of departmental proceedings.
19. The Appellate Court held that the penalty of stoppage of two years' increments with future effect was disproportionate to the alleged act of misconduct. The Court observed that the adequacy of the penalty can be considered if it is tainted with mala fide intention, arbitrariness, or perversity.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/154/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025 undefined
20. The Appellate Court, while holding the plaintiff guilty of the charge of misconduct, found that the misconduct was not deliberate. It held that a punishment of stoppage of increment without future effect would suffice the ends of justice. The Appellate Court correctly held that the plaintiff had merely remained absent in an unauthorized manner, which period was subsequently treated as leave without pay, and the act was mainly one of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly ordered the punishment of stoppage of two years' increment without future effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not awarded any back-wages. It has also come on record that the plaintiff superannuated on 31.12.2009, and all his accounts, including pension, have been settled.
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.
21. In view of the same, the present Second Appeal is dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) RAJAT YADAV Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by RAJAT YADAV(HC02362) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:26:24 IST 2025