Gujarat High Court
Jyotindrasinh Hemuba Vaghela vs Divisional Controller on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7012 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
JYOTINDRASINH HEMUBA VAGHELA
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. With the consent of the parties this matter is heard finally.
3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.28 of 2022, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect came to be affirmed.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was serving with the respondent Corporation on the post of Conductor. He was served with a chargesheet in respect of a criminal case registered under the Prohibition Act on 31.03.2012. The Corporation initiated a departmental inquiry on the basis of the said criminal complaint, and during the inquiry, except for the criminal complaint, no other material was placed for consideration. The inquiry culminated in a dismissal order dated 15.10.2019. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred a first departmental appeal, wherein the order of dismissal was set aside and substituted with the punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect, vide order dated 22.07.2020. The petitioner thereafter moved a second departmental appeal, which came to be rejected on 21.08.2021. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined which culminated in Reference (IT) No.28 of 2022. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the Reference, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the S.T. Corporation initiated the departmental inquiry solely on the basis of a criminal complaint, which ultimately resulted in an acquittal. During the departmental inquiry, no material evidence was produced, nor were any witnesses examined. The inquiry was concluded only on the basis of the statement of the reporter, who did not have any personal knowledge of the incident as he was not present at the relevant time. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod further submits that, as per the evidence of the reporter, the inquiry proceeded solely on the basis of the chargesheet filed in the criminal case, despite the fact that, on the date of the alleged incident i.e., 22.02.2019, the petitioner was on leave. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the petitioner was victimized as he was an active member of the S.T. Workers' Union, which is opposed to the S.T. Karmachari Mandal, and that due to his Union activities, the chargesheet was Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined issued without any evidence.
6.1. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that instead of conducting an independent inquiry, the departmental proceedings were concluded solely on the basis of the criminal case. Learned advocate further submits that the police complaint was lodged as a pressure tactic at the instance of the opposing union leader, and in the absence of any medical evidence or breath analyzer report, the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner.
6.2. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the acquittal constitutes a significant basis for the petitioner's claim while challenging the order of punishment. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod further submits that as a result of the punishment order, the petitioner is subjected to a penalty of Rs.2,500/- per month, which over the course of a year amounts to a loss of Rs.30,000/-. This ongoing loss will continue till his retirement, which is quite substantial, in addition to the loss of salary for the period of nine months between dismissal and reinstatement. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the petitioner has served the respondent corporation for 25 years, and this is the first case registered against him under the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined Prohibition Act.
6.3. Learned advocate has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, Raj Narain v. Union of India, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809 as well as Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175 by relying the same learned advocate has requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the Corporation, submits that the petitioner was serving as a conductor and was, in fact, on paternity leave on the day of the incident. It is submitted that the petitioner came to the Shashtrinagar Bus Stand, Rajkot, at around 02:30 hours in an intoxicated condition and misbehaved as well as used abusive language, and therefore, the police was informed telephonically. Upon arrival of the police, the petitioner was arrested and an FIR being III-C.R. No.20 of 2019 was lodged with 'A' Division Police Station, Rajkot, which culminated into the chargesheet. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined submits that the General Manager (Administration) was informed about the incident on 03.05.2019, and accordingly, departmental inquiry was initiated and chargesheet was issued on 20.05.2019. In the chargesheet, in addition to the charge of consuming liquor, there was a charge of misconduct, indiscipline, and use of abusive language at a public place while being an employee of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The inquiry was conducted by providing the petitioner full opportunity to defend his case, and ultimately, the inquiry report was submitted holding the charges proved. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued regarding the quantum of penalty, and ultimately, the order of dismissal came to be passed by a reasoned order dated 15.10.2019. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that upon challenging the said order, the first appeal was filed, which resulted in substitution of the penalty to stoppage of two increments with future effect, and upon rejection of the second appeal, the Reference came to be filed.
7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that, apart from the charge of intoxication at a public place, there was also a charge with regard to indiscipline and misconduct by the employee. Therefore, merely because of the acquittal in the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined criminal case, the petitioner would not be entitled to have the impugned award set aside. Learned advocate submits that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings and in criminal proceedings are altogether different, and therefore, the acquittal in criminal proceedings would not automatically entitle the employee to a favourable order in the disciplinary matter. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw further submits that, after examining the evidence and assigning cogent reasons, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Reference, and hence no interference is called for and the petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record of the petition, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was served with the chargesheet on the basis of the criminal case. On perusal of the chargesheet, it emerges that the charge pertained to the consumption of liquor and the use of abusive language at the bus station. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was on paternity leave on the date of the incident, i.e., 22.02.2019. Therefore, the incident alleged to have occurred was not during the course of discharging Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined official duties.
8.1. On perusal of the departmental proceedings, it emerges that, except for the evidence of the inquiry officer, who was not an eyewitness to the incident, the conclusion was arrived at holding the charge as proved, and consequently, the punishment of dismissal was imposed. The learned appellate authority considered the proportionality of the punishment and observed that the penalty of dismissal would amount to excessive punishment. Accordingly, it substituted the dismissal with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect.
8.2. On referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the Reference, it is observed that the acquittal was not an honourable acquittal but was on account of grant of benefit of doubt and technical grounds, and therefore, the Reference came to be rejected. To consider the impact of the acquittal order dated 31.03.2022, which was prior to the date of the decision in the Reference, this Court has examined the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that if the explanation offered by the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined appellant was not considered by the inquiry officer in a true and proper spirit, the departmental proceedings stand vitiated and are liable to be set aside. While examining the effect of acquittal in the criminal proceedings, it was further observed that expressions such as "benefit of doubt" and "honourable acquittal" used in the judgment are not to be understood as mere magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by mere terminology. Where the conclusion of acquittal in the criminal proceedings is arrived at after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge, then the court, in judicial review, is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment rather than the form of expression employed. In that case, the Apex Court quashed the order of the disciplinary authority, holding that the charges were not merely similar but were identical and that the evidence, witnesses, and circumstances were also the same.
9. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that when the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are based on an identical set of facts, Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined and the only witness examined in the departmental inquiry is the inquiry officer, for concluding that the charge is proved, it would be unjust, unfair, and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand.
10. Similar was the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra), wherein it was held that when the facts and evidence in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings are the same, without there being even an iota of difference, the departmental proceedings should be set aside. The distinction that is ordinarily drawn between departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in all cases. It was further observed that though the findings recorded in the domestic inquiry were found to be valid by the Courts of law, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be duly taken into consideration, and the decision in M. Paul Anthony (supra) would apply. The Apex Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, which confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge concluding that sufficient Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7012/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined evidence was found against the appellant, came to be allowed.
11. Considering the overall ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that when the departmental inquiry was conducted solely on the basis of the criminal case, and except for the deposition of the inquiry officer no other evidence was adduced to prove the charge, the acquittal in the criminal proceedings would have a significant impact. In such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the department are required to be quashed.
12. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect is also set aside. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
13. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 22:44:25 IST 2025