State Of Gujarat vs Np Surati
2022 Latest Caselaw 8598 Guj

        C/LPA/1838/2017                          ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1838 of 2017
         In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9639 of 2004
==========================================================
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                              Versus
                             NP SURATI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
          and
          HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                              Date : 28/09/2022
                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

[1.0] By way of present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the State of Gujarat has challenged an oral judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9639 of 2004 by which the learned Single Judge while dealing with the proportionality of punishment has imposed penalty of reduction in pay for a period of two years without any future effect.

Hence, present appeal.

[2.0] Learned AGP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing for the appellant - State of Gujarat would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in modifying the order impugned which was challenged by the respondent herein - original petitioner considering the allegations leveled against the present respondent - employee. He, therefore, would submit that the

C/LPA/1838/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022

appeal be accordingly allowed.

[3.0] On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. S.P. Hasurkar appearing for the respondent herein - original petitioner - employee has opposed the present appeal and would submit that considering the nature of allegations leveled against the employee and the fact that there was some procedural lapse on the part of the appellant, learned Single Judge has imposed appropriate punishment and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. He has therefore requested to dismiss the present appeal.

[4.0] We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also gone through the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by the Authority and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for modifying the punishment. The observations made by the learned Single in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment reads as under:

"5. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly on perusal of the second show-cause notice dated 12.09.2000, it appears that the disciplinary authority has not specified the punishment in the said show-cause notice, and therefore, mandatory requirement of second show-cause notice is not complied with in the instant case. The petitioner was not informed as to why particular punishment should not be inflicted upon him. It appears that despite the technical flow,

C/LPA/1838/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022

the petitioner has submitted explanation upon receipt of the intimation dated 17.10.2000. On perusal of the intimation dated 17.10.2000, it also appears that even in the said intimation, the punishment part is not specified. Moreover, it also appears that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation as to why any punishment should not be inflicted upon him. However, in the impugned order dated 24.09.2002, the disciplinary authority has not dealt with the written submissions/explanation submitted by the petitioner. This Court finds substance in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, mainly on two grounds referred herein above. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the said order was passed in September, 2002 and by now, more than 15 years have been passed, and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the disciplinary authority for de-novo consideration at the stage of second show-cause notice. Looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner and considering the proportionality of punishment in respect of the charges, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to modify the order of punishment to the effect that there shall be one stage reduction in pay for a period of two years, but the same shall be without any future effect.

Accordingly, the same is ordered to be modified. In view of the statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions received from

C/LPA/1838/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022

his client, that the petitioner is ready and willing to waive 50% of arrears on differential amount, the respondents are directed to pay the consequential benefits to the tune of 50% only that may be payable to the petitioner. Arrears, if any, be paid to the petitioner to the extent of 50% only."

[5.0] We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 of the impugned oral judgment. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and therefore, present appeal being devoid of merits is required to be dismissed.

[6.0] Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

(A.J. DESAI, J.)

(MAUNA M. BHATT, J.)

Ajay