State Of Gujarat vs Hansaben Yogeshkumar Purohit
2022 Latest Caselaw 8262 Guj

    C/SCA/11103/2019                              JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11103 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                   Versus
                       HANSABEN YOGESHKUMAR PUROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                              Date : 21/09/2022

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP for the

petitioner - State and Mr.Hardik Vora learned

advocate for the respondent workman.

C/SCA/11103/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2022

2. In this petition, the State has challenged the

order of Gujarat civil Services Tribunal in Appeal

No. 52 of 2017 dated 30.10.2018, by which, the

order of compulsory retirement dated 02.05.2017

imposed on the respondent is quashed and set

aside. The respondent during her tenure of

service was absent from 05.04.2019 to

26.01.2014. For this, a departmental

proceedings was held and the inquiry officer

having held the charge as proved, imposed the

penalty of compulsory retirement but, for the

order of compulsory retirement being imposed,

the respondent would have otherwise

superannuated.

3. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP would submit that

the Tribunal committed an error inasmuch as it

was not open for the Tribunal to set aside the

penalty entirely inasmuch as the respondent was

C/SCA/11103/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2022

found to be unauthorisedly absent for over a

period of five years and therefore even if the

penalty of compulsory retirement was unjustified

and some major penalty ought to have been

imposed on the petitioner.

4. Mr.Hardik Vora learned counsel for the

respondent would submit reading the reply that

there are justifiable grounds on which the order

of penalty was unjustified. The absence was

explained, reports for leave were filed for various

periods and the Tribunal committed no error in

setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.

5. Considering the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the respective parties and

reading the order of Tribunal would indicate that

for a period of over five years of absence having

been proved by the petitioner in the

C/SCA/11103/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2022

departmental proceedings, the Tribunal could

not have completely exonerated the respondent

but ought to have substituted the penalty rather

than setting aside the entire order.

6. In the interest of justice, the order of the

Tribunal is set aside. The respondent shall be

imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage

in the time scale of pay for a period from

05.04.2009 to 26.01.2014. The petitioner shall

be treated to have retired on superannuation

with effect from, 31.07.2018 and paid all

consequential terminal benefits after taking into

consideration the period of penalty of reduction

in the time scale of pay to a lower stage for the

aforesaid period.

7. Based on this penalty, the pay fixation of the

respondent be done.

C/SCA/11103/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2022

8. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid

extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid

extent. Direct service is permitted.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH