Gujarat High Court
Pradipbhai Lalbhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2198 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRADIPBHAI LALBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, by quashing and setting aside the office order / communication dated 16.03.2018 as well as 12.11.2018 and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) with continuity of service and all consequential benefits; Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, by directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed);
(c) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner came to be appointed as Lok Rakshak by the respondent no. 4 herein by office order dated 18.05.2017 after complying with all legal procedure and after passing the due examination. The appointment of the petitioner was legal and valid in the eyes of law to which there would be no dispute. Thereafter, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and five other persons before Panshina Police Station being I-C.R. No. 19 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Pursuant to the Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined said FIR, investigation commenced and final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. came to be submitted before the learned J.M.F.C., Limbdi. Along with the said report, the Investigating Officer had submitted a report stating that no case under Section 395 of the IPC is made out and therefore "B Summary" qua offence punishable under section 395 of the IPC was submitted.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 appointing the petitioner as Lok Rakshak, the petitioner was posted as Lok Rakshak before Limbdi Police Station on 24.05.2017.
Lateron, by office order dated 16.03.2018, the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled on the ground that the FIR is registered against the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that learned J.M.F.C., Limbdi by order dated 06.06.2018 had accepted the "B Summary" submitted by the Investigating Officer and offence under Section 395 of the IPC was deleted. Later on, the original complainant of the said complaint entered into settlement with the petitioner along with two other persons namely Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Jayeshbhai Pethabhai Chauhan i.e. the accused No. 3 and Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan i.e. accused no. 5. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner along with the above two persons had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 14427 of 2018 for quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 05.09.2018, was pleased to quash the said FIR along with all consequential proceedings. 2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that before this Court that the accused no. 3 of the said FIR i.e. Jayesh Pethabhai Chauhan also came to be appointed as Lok Rakshak by the DSP Rajkot Rural by office order dated 18.05.2017. Likewise, the accused no. 5 Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan was also appointed as Lok Rakshak by office order dated 13/18-05- 2017. Both the above persons, who are the accused of very same complaint, were also granted appointment and posting orders. However, when the petitioner took charge in Limbdi Police Station as Lok Rakshak, on the very same day, the petitioner was relieved from the services. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the FIR was quashed by this Court, the petitioner Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined had submitted an application dated 15.09.2018, requesting the respondent no. 4 to reinstate him back in the services as the FIR was also already quashed. The respondent no. 4 by office order dated 12.11.2018 rejectedthe application of the petitioner on the ground that by the order dated 16.03.2018, the services of the petitioner were put to an end and therefore, nothing further was required to be done. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
3. Heard Mr. Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State. 4.1 Mr. Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the action of other respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) is bad, illegal and arbitrary and affects the fundamental rights assured to the petitioner in the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that the FIR in respect of whom the appointment is cancelled, is already quashed and set aside by this Court by order dated Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 05.09.2018. Therefore, the respondent ought to have considered the request of the petitioner dated 15.09.2018. Therefore, the impugned is bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the treatment given by the respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as one Shri Jayeshbhai Pethabhai Chauhan and Kishorekumar Palabhai Chauhan who are the accused of the very same FIR, were also granted appointment despite the fact that FIR was registered against them and are continued in the service, whereas, by impugned communication dated 16.03.2018, the services of the petitioner were put to an end on the ground of pendency of the FIR which is already quashed and set aside.
4.2 He has further submitted that the respondent no. 4 has stated that there is no provision for reinstating the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 ought to have considered that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered on the ground that no full-fledge trial was conducted against the petitioner and the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings were quashed by this Court on the ground of settlement. He has Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined further submitted that since Jayeshkumar Pethabhai Chauhan and Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan are permitted to continue in the service despite the factum of registration of FIR, the case of the petitioner was on the same footing and therefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been put to an end. Therefore, the petitioner was required to be reinstated in the service. He has further submitted that the petitioner was also selected as Van Rakshak, however, on account of being appointing as Lok Rakshak, the petitioner was not able to join the said services at Van Rakshak and ultimately, the said appointment stood cancelled by order dated 08.03.2018. He has further submitted that on account of being appointed as Lok Rakshak, the petitioner had not accepted his appointment as Van Rakshak. Even otherwise, the FIR pursuant to which, the appointment stood cancelled is quashed by this Court. He has further submitted that on the day, no proceedings whatsoever was pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is a meritorious candidate who had secured excellent marks. Therefore, looking to the candidature of the petitioner, the petitioner is required to be reinstated. He has further submitted that the other Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined accused of the FIR are already working and discharging their duties as Lok-Rakshak and, therefore, the treatment given to the petitioner is arbitrary. Even otherwise, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for reinstating on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) is bad and illegal and deserves to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 and has prayed to allow the present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State has by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by concerned Dy.S.P. has submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed necessary details at the time of filling form while giving declaration before the Authority about his past criminal cases or criminal proceeding, which are pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has categorically stated "No" in such declaration though at the time of declaration, which is filed by the petitioner, at that point of time, the FIR against the petitioner was Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined already lodged and was pending for the investigation. It is required to note that the FIR is lodged against the present petitioner on 21.04.2017 and declaration is given at the time of process of recruitment subsequent to the FIR without disclosing the fact that the FIR is already filed against the present petitioner before Panshina Police Station being I-C.R. No. 19 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 5.2 He has further submitted by referring to the affidavit-in-reply that subsequent acquittal of the petitioner has no relevance as the termination or removal was based on conduct of the petitioner for not disclosing the correct facts at the time of appointment and thereby, misleading the concerned Authority, which has led to the loss of confidence. He has further submitted that it is also relevant that the petitioner is already in service of Lok Rakshak in Surat City since the year 2020 and the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and the petitioner has never disclosed this said fact and, therefore also, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He has also submitted that as such, the Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined petitioner was initially appointed for five years on the basis of contractual terms and his services can be terminated more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in serious offence like Section 395 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned decision taken by the respondent Authority for terminating the services of the petitioner and, therefore, he has submitted that the present petition is required to be dismissed. 6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Lok Rakshak purely on the contractual basis as temporary employee, which is required to be confirmed after having satisfactory completion of five years of service. During the process of the recruitment as part of the process, the petitioner has filed declaration by stating certain details in the declaration and one of the details is that whether any complaint is filed against the petitioner or pending at the time of filing of the declaration and petitioner has mentioned in the said declaration as "No" against that call, which is found incorrect in view of the FIR, which was already Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined filed against the present petitioner before Panshina Police Station being I-C.R. No. 19 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 6.2 Furthermore, one more aspect, which is required to be considered is that; considering the conduct of the petitioner that though he has got the job as Lok Rakshak in the year 2020 as per affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has not disclosed this fact during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court by filing appropriate affidavit. Moreover considering the fact that when the petitioner has suppressed such relevant fact by making false declaration at the time of appointment; employer has all authority to terminate the services of such employee as employer might have lost the confidence in such employee due to such false declaration. Otherwise also, it is expected in such disciplined force like the present one where the petitioner is selected as Lok Rakshak, the standard of high integrity and all fairness and in view of the above, the petitioner is not found fit to get any sympathy from this Court.
Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 6.3 It is fruitful to consider the judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 23, 24 and 30 are relevant. The facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case. There is no quarrel about the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment. Considering the fact that in that case, the employees are permanent employees and also considering the nature of offence, and the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that in case of moral turpitude only, such harsh punishment can be imposed.
In the present case, the offence is registered under the provisions of Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and also considering the fact that the petitioner at the relevant point of time has not disclosed the correct facts while filing declaration. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
6.4 Furthermore, on the contrary, the petitioner has tried to abuse the process of law by filing such petition and, therefore, considering the suppression before the Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Authority as well as non-disclosure of the subsequent development before this Court, this Court found that this is a fit case where the token cost is required to be imposed on the present petitioner. Therefore, cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed, which shall be paid by the petitioner before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today and receipt of the same shall be produced before the Registry.
7. With the above observation, the present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid cost. Notice stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:02 IST 2025