Gujarat High Court
Shri Palitana Education Society ... vs Ms. Harshaben Jayantilal Bhal on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12403 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SHRI PALITANA EDUCATION SOCIETY (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY)
& ANR.
Versus
MS. HARSHABEN JAYANTILAL BHAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. FORAM SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya as also learned AGP Ms. Forum Shah, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present writ petition is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.G.Shukla with learned advocate Ms. Meshwa Bhatt for the petitioners, learned Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined advocate Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya for respondent No.1 and learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Foram Shah for respondent No.2, at length.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-
"9. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned interim Order dated 05.03.2020 below Application Ex.11 in Application No.2041 of 2014 passed by the learned Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad at Annexure "A" to this petition as being illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority in law.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to grant the interim relief staying the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned interim Order dated
05.03.2020 below Application Ex.11 in Application No. 2041 of 2014 passed by the learned Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad at Annexure "A" to this petition;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be further pleased to grant the interim relief staying the proceedings of Application No. 2041 of 2014 pending before the learned Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad;
(D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) & above may kindly be granted.
(E) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. D.G.Shukla with Ms. Meshwa Bhatt would state that respondent No.1 was working as Principal with petitioner
- School and she was dismissed from service without holding any inquiry, thereby, she chooses to challenge such decision of her dismissal before Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), being Application No.2041 of 2014, wherein impugned application filed by the petitioners below Exhibit-11, whereby requested the Tribunal to allow petitioners to lead an evidence pursuant to Notice dated 17.06.2013 and 03.07.2023 issued against the petitioners. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would submit that despite the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in number of its decisions, one of it cited before the Tribunal, the impugned application filed below Exhibit-11 by the petitioners herein has been erroneously rejected.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would respectfully submit that it is settled legal position of law that in a case where decision of petitioners dismissing respondent No.1 found to be in violation of principles of natural justice, in that eventuality, petitioners require to be given an opportunity to lead an evidence to justify their decision of dismissal.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 5.4. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would heavily rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge Company Limited Vs. A.B.Zodge reported in 1996 (4) SCC 374, whereby would contend that in a case of no disciplinary inquiry undertaken by employer against delinquent before imposing penalty and same is under challenge before Tribual, in such a case, if employer requests Tribunal to grant such opportunity to employer to lead evidence, thereby can substantiate its decision, same is required to be granted by the Tribunal. 5.5. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would respectfully submit that as Tribunal has completely overlooked the aspect of observing principles of natural justice, vis-a-vis the request made by the petitioners and erroneously observed that decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge Company Limited (supra) would not be applicable to the proceedings instituted before the Tribunal as there is no provision under the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972'), granting such liberty in favour of employer, thus, committed serious error in law.
5.6. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla would submit that observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and ratio of its decision is requires to be applied/binding to every Court / Tribunal. It is submitted Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined that even there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which contemplates such opportunity to be given to the employer concerned in a case where decision is found to be against the principles of natural justice, then also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, on which the reliance placed, granted such opportunity to the employer concern. 5.7. Thus, making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shukla, would request this Court that impugned decision of Tribunal may be quashed and set aside and liberty may be granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence in a case where Tribunal comes to the conclusion that their decision of dismissing respondent No.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1 6.1. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for respondent No.1 would vehemently object the present writ petition, contending inter alia, that petitioners, knowing fully well, have passed an order of dismissal without observing the provisions of 'the Act, 1972' and in that event, at this stage, no such liberty be given to the petitioners. It is submitted that there is no error, much less any error of law, committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the impugned application filed by the petitioners. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Vaidya would further submit that there is Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined no express provisions under 'the Act, 1972' to grant any such liberty in favour of the petitioners being employer, in a case where impugned decision found to be in violation of principles of natural justice, thereby, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners. It is submitted that at given point of time, District Education Officer, in its order dated 13.02.2014, categorically observed that the petitioners require to follow the procedure as per 'the Act, 1972' when imposed major penalty upon respondent No.1. It is further submitted that when petitioners have not taken this into account and without holding any inquiry, dismissed the respondent No.1, to fill the lacuna in their decision, request made by the petitioners by way of impugned application, which cannot be granted and should not be entertained by this Court.
6.3. Learned advocate Mr. Vaidya, would respectfully submit that as per prayer made in para-2 of the impugned application, whereby petitioners want to contemplate fresh inquiry against respondent No.1 in pursuance of their notice dated 17.06.2013 and 03.07.2013, which cannot be permitted, even if, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court may be applicable in the facts of the present case, as Hon'ble Apex Court even not granted such liberty in favour of the employer.
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 6.4. Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Vaidya would humbly request that if ultimately, this Court comes to the conclusion that as per the cited decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioners require to give such opportunity to lead their evidence, then considering the fact that the original application filed by respondent No.1 before Tribunal is of the year 2014 and as such, respondent No.1 was dismissed from service, suitable direction be issued to the Tribunal to conclude the trial of such application and decide it as early as possible. 6.5. Making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Vaidya would request this Court to reject this petition.
7. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2. 7.1. Learned AGP Ms. Forum Shah appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that, as such appropriate direction is already issued by the District Education Officer to petitioners before inflicting an order of punishment and as such, when matter pending writ large before the Tribunal, this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
8. ANALYSIS 8.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is remained undisputed that without holding any departmental inquiry against respondent No.1, petitioners have terminated her services by imposing punishment of dismissal, Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined which is subject matter of application No.2041 of 2014 instituted by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2, which is still pending before the Tribunal. 8.2. In this backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners being employer moved an application below Exhibit-11 before the Tribunal contending that if Tribunal comes to the conclusion that order of dismissal suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, an opportunity may be granted to petitioners to initiate inquiry against respondent No.1. 8.3. It is true that at given point of time, respondent No.2 herein appears to have passed an order dated 13.02.2014, whereby directed the petitioners that before inflicting any major penalty upon respondent No.1, petitioners do observe the provision of the Act, 1972. Whether order of dismissal passed by the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice or in contravention of any of the provisions of 'the Act, 1972', is yet to be decided by the Tribunal. So, at this stage, this Court would not like to make any comment on the nature of the order of dismissal impugned before the Tribunal.
8.4. At the same time, in a case where decision of terminating the services of respondent No.1 in form of dismissal, would ultimately found to be in violation of principles of natural justice and / or Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined contrary to the provisions of 'the Act, 1972' by the Tribunal, in that eventuality, if employer wants to avail an opportunity to lead an appropriate evidence before the Tribunal concerned, such opportunity, if sought for, could not have been denied by the Tribunal as employer wishes to make the order of dismissal good on the strength of evidence which may be led by it.
9. As such, issue germane in the matter, according to me, squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge Company Limited (supra), wherein after discussing the previous case law on the issue, Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"7. A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for non- compliance of rules of natural justice or for perversity. Disciplinary action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. The right of the employer to adduce evidence in both the situations is well-recognised. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1965 (II) LLJ 162 (SC>). State Bank of India Vs. R.K.Jain (1971 (III) LLJ 599 (SC>). Delhi Cloth General Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh (1972 (1) LLJ 180 (SC>) and Firestone Tyre Co.s Case (supra).
The stage at which the employer should ask for permission to c additional evidence to justify the disciplinary action on merits was indicated by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mill's case (supra). In Sankar Chakrabarty's case (supra), the contention that in every case of disciplinary action coming before the Tribunal, the Tribunal as a matter of law must frame preliminary issue and proceed to see the validity or Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined otherwise of the enquiry and then serve a fresh notice on the employe- by calling him to adduce further evidence to sustain the charges, if the employer chooses to do so, by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1975 (2) LLJ 379 (SC>), has not been accepted. The view expressed in Delhi Cloth Mill's case (supra) that before the proceedings are closed, an opportunity to adduce evidence would be given if a suitable request for such opportunity is made by the employer to the Tribunal, has been reiterated in Sankar Chakrabarty's case after observing that on the question as to the stage as to when leave to adduce further evidence is to be sought for, the decision of this Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. has not overruled the decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth Mill's case. There is no dispute in the present case that before the closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, payer was made by the employer to lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, denial of the opportunity to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in support of the order of dismissal cannot be justified."
(emphasis supplied) 9.1. The bare reading of aforesaid would clearly indicate that in a case where departmental action taken on the basis of a vitiated inquiry and/or rule of natural justice would not follow, in both the situations, it is well recognized that right of employer to adduce evidence can be granted, if sought for.
10. The Tribunal appears to have not properly appreciated the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, inasmuch as, erroneously observed that decision of Hon'ble Apex Court having so passed under Labour Laws, not Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined applicable to the facts of the present case as nothing germane from the provisions of 'the Act 1972', which entitled employer to seek for such opportunity.
11. According to my view, the observations and reasons, so assigned by the Tribunal while rejecting the impugned application, not only erroneous but perverse rather contrary to settled legal position of law, require to be set at naught by this Court. The ratio of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court and such other decisions would be applicable in all disciplinary action taken by employer against delinquent- employee be it governed by Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or the Act, 1972 or like one. Whenever, any Tribunal found the disciplinary action of employer suffers from the flaw as noticed in the aforesaid decision, if employer sought for an opportunity to lead its evidence, the Tribunal require to grant such opportunity.
12. At the same time, there is some substance in the argument so canvassed by Mr. Vaidya, learned advocate for respondent No.1-dismissed employee, that under pretext of availing such opportunity, petitioners cannot be permitted to initiate fresh departmental inquiry against her, as requested Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined in impugned application.
13. As can be seen and held by Hon'ble Apex Court that what is to be granted to the petitioners, is an opportunity to lead an appropriate evidence to justify their decision, thereby dismissed the services of respondent No.1, and not to permit the petitioner to hold a departmental inquiry, that too, before the Tribunal.
14. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Shukla, under the instructions of his client, would not join the issue in this regard and request this Court that though before the Tribunal in an impugned application request made for departmental inquiry to be conducted by the petitioners, petitioners may be permitted to lead only evidence before the Tribunal, to substantiate penalty of dismissal inflicted upon respondent No.1.
15. CONCLUSION 15.1. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge Company Limited (supra), so also in view of forgoing reasons, the Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside which is hereby quashed and set aside.
15.2. Consequently, impugned application filed below Exhibit-
11 in application No.2041 of 2014 pending before the Tribunal is hereby partly allowed to the extent that in a case where Tribunal comes to the conclusion that order of dismissal impugned in the aforesaid application is vitiated and suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and / or passed contrary to provisions of 'the Act, 1972', in that eventuality, petitioners herein are permitted to lead appropriate evidence in accordance with law to justify its order of dismissal.
15.3. It goes without saying that in such an event, respondent No.1 is permitted to cross examine the witness of petitioners, if any and also can lead her appropriate evidence to rebut the evidence of petitioners.
16. Before parting it, it is observed that the aforesaid application preferred by respondent No.1 in the year 2014, who faced the order of dismissal, considering such facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is hereby directed to Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12403/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined adjudicate the entire process of deciding the aforesaid application on or before 31 st December, 2026, subject to respondent No.1 cooperates before the Tribunal.
17. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. No costs. Direct Service permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Nov 10 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 10 22:24:58 IST 2025