Gujarat High Court
Devdutt Narayanbhai Panpatil vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9041 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVDUTT NARAYANBHAI PANPATIL
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SMIT P VAGHELA(10653) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. AKASH GUPTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Gupta for the Respondent - State.
Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The Petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 21.11.1983 at District - Valsad. As per the service record, the date of the retirement of the Petitioner was 31.08.2020 and the Petitioner was not with the Respondents for about 30 years. At the relevant point of time, the Petitioner was serving as Assistant Police Constable at Navsari Town Police Station.
2.2 An FIR being C.R.No. 70 of 2006 before Navsari Town Police Station was registered against the Petitioner along with other co-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (2) of the Passport Act, 1967. As per the FIR, the Petitioner, while serving as Police Constable, Navsari Town Police Station with respect of the passport inquiry of one accused namely, Femida W/o. Bilal Gulam Shaikh had failed to make proper inquiry with respect to the birth place and thereby helped the accused person in getting the forged passport and therefore, allegation against the Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Petitioner was made with respect to negligence and improper inquiry in performance of his duties.
2.3 After completion of investigation, criminal case being Criminal Case No. 5974 of 2006 was registered and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari vide order dated 21.07.2018 convicted all the accused persons.
2.4 The Petitioner filed a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Court whereby learned Sessions Judge, Navsari vide order dated 27.07.2018 suspended the order of conviction dated 21.07.2018 and released the Petitioner on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 2.5 In view of the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the Respondent no. 3 issued a show cause notice dated 24.08.2018 as to why the Petitioner should not be dismissed from service for the said conviction imposed by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the Petitioner filed a detailed Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined reply stating that he has preferred Appeal before the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court has released him on bail and therefore, the said show cause notice may be withdrawn and / or continued in services with all the consequential benefits.
2.6 The Respondent no. 3 without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, vide order dated 01.11.2018, dismissed the Petitioner from services. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. The said appeal was dismissed and order was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police, Surat Division vide order dated 13.05.2019.
2.7 It is the case of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the present petition, the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 whereby the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.07.2018 was quashed and set aside.
Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined 2.8 Thereafter, the Petitioner made representation dated 05.12.2023 to the Respondent authority in view of the acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal appeal. The representation was rejected vide order dated 20.07.2024.
3. It will be seen that the culmination of the disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner resulted in the following major penalty being awarded:-
"I, Premveer Singh, Superintendent of Police, Navsari, do hereby pass the order to impose the penalty pursuant to the charge referred at Preamble (1) against you i.e. Devdutt Narayan Panpatil, B.No. 540, Service at:
Navsari Town Police Station, to place you in the minimum basic pay of Rs.3200/- in the Pay Scale of Rs.3200-85-4900 for six years and to count the period of suspension of the delinquent from 25/08/2006 to 17/11/2007 as a suspension."
4. Due to the Petitioner's conviction in the criminal proceedings by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Petitioner was removed from service. On appeal, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Navsari by order dated 04.09.2023 acquitted the Petitioner on the following terms:-
Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
1) Criminal Appeal No.38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45 of 2018 are hereby allowed.
2) Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2022 is hereby rejected.
3) The case against the Accused No.3 - Shabbir Ahmad Amirmiya Shaikh, Accused No.8 - Dipakbhai Kesrinath Pradhan and Accused No.14 - Dilipbhai Maganbhai Parmar of the judgment passed vide Exhibit-525 in Criminal Case No.5947/2006 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari hereby stands abated.
4) Quashing and setting aside the judgment passed vide Exhibit-525 in Criminal Case No.5947/2006 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari; Appellant/ Accused No.1 - Femida W/o. Bilal Gulam Shaikh, Accused No.2 - Bilal Gulam Shaikh, Accused No.4 - Pravinkumar Kikubhai Koli Patel, Accused No.5 - Bhagubhai Dahyabhai Mistry, Accused No.6 - Devdutt Narayan Panpatil, Accused No.7 - Dipak Hiralal Mistry, Accused No.9 - Zakir Husen @ Babu Mahammad Patel - Muslim, Accused No.10 -
Ikbal Abdulla Patel - Muslim, Accused No.11 - Mohammad Tarik Aminuddin Kadri, Accused No.12 - Mustak Gulam Malek, Accused No.13 - Imtiyaz Rasul Malek and Accused No.15 - Rajendra Bhajanlal Swami are hereby acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections-181, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section-12(a)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section-14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
5) The amount of fine deposited by the appellants / accused before the Subordinate Court, if any, be refunded after the appeal period is over.
6) The Appellants/ Accused shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- as per Section-437A of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure that they will remain present before the Hon'ble High Court in case of appeal.
7) Copy of this judgment alongwith records and proceedings Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined of the said case be sent back forthwith to the Learned Lower Court.
5. The Petitioner, consequent to his acquittal by the Sessions Court, had preferred the representation dated 05.12.2023, which came to be rejected by the order dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure - G/ 3 to the petition).
6. Subsequently, by way of an amendment to the original petition challenging the findings of the disciplinary inquiry, the Petitioner inserted the following prayer:-
"8 (BB) Quash and set aside the order dated 20.07.2024 Annexure - G/3 to this petition"
7. The short question which arises for determination of this Court in the aforesaid factual background is whether the Petitioner would be entitled to be restored to the position, he was, prior to the order of conviction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, consequent upon the reversal of the same by the Sessions Court at Navsari.
Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
8. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Vyas, learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that once the clean acquittal has been granted by the Sessions Court on the exact same facts on which the departmental inquiry has been held, it should automatically culminate in the disciplinary proceedings being set aside and the Petitioner ought to be declared innocent even in respect of the departmental inquiry. However, in the facts of the case, the Petitioner is confining his challenge only to the restoration of the job and consequntial benefits inasmuch as, the departmental authority had imposed a major penalty other than dismissal from service and therefore, the subsequent dismissal based on the criminal proceedings have to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Gupta appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State submitted that once the departmental proceedings have culminated in the dismissal from service, this Court would be very cautious and slow to interfere with such decision. Learned AGP Mr. Gupta further submitted that the acquittal of the Petitioner is based Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined only on the technicalities and it is not a clean-cut acquittal which can be said to be an honourable acquittal which would have any effect on the departmental proceedings and the final findings of the disciplinary authority. Even, in the facts of the case and the grave allegations against the Petitioner, no relief ought to be granted to the Petitioner and the petition needs to be dismissed. 9.1. Learned AGP, Mr. Gupta relied upon the recent decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 25294 of 2007 in the case of Gulabsinh Devusinh Jhala V/s. State of Gujarat and Others, wherein, this Court relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajsthan V/s. Bhupendrasing reported in AIR 2024 SC 4034, had held as under:-
"14. In the opinion of this court, when the charges levelled against the Petitioners are proved, the same resulting into 'misconduct' by a full fledged inquiry, the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary / departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority unless found to be wholly arbitrary Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined and misconceived. Undisputedly, the well grained principle of law is that, the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be imposed to a delinquent employee, keeping in view of the seriousness of the misconduct of an employee. The Court cannot assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid principle is explained in AIR 1999 SC 625 (para-22). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank) & Anr. v/s. Rajendra Singh, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3540, harmoniously summarized the principles laid down in Para-16, which reads thus:
"16. This, according to us, would be the harmonious reading of Obettee (P) Ltd. and Rajendra Yadav cases.
The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:
(a) When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities;
b) The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority;
(c) Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court;
(d) Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
(e) The only exception to the principle stated in para (d) above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co- delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
9.2. Learned AGP Mr. Gupta further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal V/s. State of Rajsthan and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1305/2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" [See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190].
10. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:-
I am of the opinion that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra) and of this Court in the case of Gulabsinh (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:-
(A) in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority did not recommend the dismissal of the Petitioner after completion of the inquiry. Rather, the authority had imposed another major penalty which the petitioner hs already suffered/will suffer. The dismissal of the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined Petitioner was occasioned solely by the conviction of the Petitioner, as pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the simultaneous criminal proceedings which were undertaken against the Petitioner and other co-accused therein. It is specific case of the Petitioner that since the dismissal from service is based upon the conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, then, the subsequent acquittal of the Petitioner by the Sessions Court would neutralize the said position, inasmuch as, the exact position and the penalty imposed upon the Petitioner pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings as confirmed by the disciplinary authority by imposing a major penalty other than dismissal, should be restored and the dismissal of the Petitioner should be recalled. In the decisions relied upon by the learned AGP Mr. Gupta, particularly, in the case of Ram Lal (supra), the disciplinary authority itself had dismissed the Petitioner from the service. Paragraph no. 5 of the decision in the case of Ram Lal (supra) is as under:-
"5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of 31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain."
In my opinion, this is the major distinguishing factor as to why the decision of Ram Lal (supra) is inapplicable to the Petitioner's case. It is not as if the Petitioner seeks that the entire disciplinary proceedings should be washed-out because of the subsequent acquittal on the exact same set of facts arising out of the very same transaction. The Petitioner's case is limited to neutralizing the dismissal from the service which was based not on original order of the disciplinary authority but consequent upon the conviction in the criminal proceedings, as held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(B) Similarly, the decision in the case of Gulabsinh (supra) is on the point that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India will Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined not sit in appeal over the decision of the departmental authorities because the quantum of the punishment to be imposed is essentially in the domain of the departmental authorities. In the present case, this Court is not substituting the decision of the disciplinary authority which is found in its order dated 24.07.2009 (at page no. 89 bottom of the paper book) but is merely interdicting with the subsequent decision of the disciplinary authority which was solely based upon the order of the conviction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which now stands reversed by the Sessions Court.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order dated 20.07.2024 is to be set aside. Further orders of the disciplinary authorities dated 01.11.2018, 13.05.2019 and 13.09.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. Since the Petitioner would have superannuated on 31.08.2020, if he had otherwise been in service, the Respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal upto the date of superannuation / retirement i.e. 31.08.2020. Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined
12. Therefore, this petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 24 05:33:07 IST 2025