Gujarat High Court
Rameshchandra N. Dabhi vs The High Court Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 315 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6903 of 1999
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 315 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA N. DABHI
Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VAIBHAV V GOSWAMY(9019) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge challenging the judgement and order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition was dismissed confirming the order of penalty of Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined compulsory retirement. The order of penalty was so passed on culmination of departmental proceedings conducted by the District Court pursuant to a charge- sheet issued to the appellant herein.
2. Briefly stated the facts were that the appellant was working as a Junior Clerk in the court of Civil Judge, Gogha, Bhavnagar. He was served with a charge-sheet where essentially three charges were imputed, one of them being demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.850/- from one Shri Mahesh Sindhi - elder brother of accused for getting him released on bail. Based on the charge- sheet so issued, an inquiry was conducted wherein six witnesses were examined of which one was the Magistrate who himself was, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, charged for the same transaction.
3. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the inquiry was vitiated on the ground Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined that the very officer who was examined in the inquiry and who prepared the preliminary report was facing the same charge. Several other contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been set out by the learned Single Judge in the order which is under challenge before us.
4. Post the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellant filed an appeal on the administrative side of the High Court. We have the benefit of the order of the appellate authority on the administrative side. The appellate authority has extensively dealt with the contentions so raised and reiterated before us. From the findings of the appellate authority, we find that the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge who concurred with the findings has held that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the inquiry stood vitiated on the sole ground of the Magistrate having prepared the preliminary report is misconceived inasmuch as the preparation of Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined the report was also undertaken by the concerned District Judge.
4.1 Considering the findings of the appellate authority as recorded in paragraph no. 17 onwards, we find that even in the cross examination the complainant Mr. Mahesh Sindhi who otherwise had refused to sign the statement of cross examination had admitted that an amount of Rs.850/- was given towards bribe to the appellant. We note from the findings of the appellate authority that even the contention that the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice was not accepted by the appellate authority as well as by the learned Single Judge and in our opinion rightly so that the documents that were demanded, if the contentions that were so raised by the appellant that it violated the principles of natural justice, it was not pressed by the appellant neither before the Inquiry Officer nor before the disciplinary authority that the documents were essential for his defence of his Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined denial proved.
5. Well settled it is that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that a writ court cannot sit in appeal over the proceedings conducted in an inquiry pursuant to which an order of penalty has been imposed. We for the benefit of this order would like to reproduce paragraphs no. 20.1 and 21 of the order of learned Single Judge:
"20.1 But, in the facts of the present case, merely because the Magistrate, against whom the allegations of corruptions were made, submitted the Preliminary Report cannot be said to cause any bias to the petitioner, more particularly, when the disciplinary authority, accepted the report of the Inquiry conducted by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, was not part of Preliminary Inquiry. Therefore, there was no question of any bias, as sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the facts of the case, and hence, the said judgment relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner of bias is not applicable in the facts of this case.
21. On a perusal of the inquiry report as well as the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer as well as the documents, which are forming the part of the Inquiry Report and the decision of the Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025 undefined appellate authority, the principle of bias is not applicable, as there is no real bias emerging from the facts of this case as pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner is found guilty of all the three charges leveled against him, on the basis of the evidence, oral as well as the documentary, which have been appreciated during the course of inquiry and which have been also elaborately considered by the Appellate Authority, and therefore, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown on behalf of the petitioner that such findings given by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority are perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out any perversity in findings arrived at by Inquiry Officer contradictory to the evidence on record. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed."
6. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, ACJ) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) DIVYA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:41:00 IST 2025