Gujarat High Court
Dharmendra Chatrasinh Rathwa vs Divisional Controller, S.T Vadodara on 30 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17078/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17078 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DHARMENDRA CHATRASINH RATHWA
Versus
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, S.T VADODARA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANJAL PATEL FOR MR. MN MARFATIA(6930) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondents.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
31.08.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal,
Vadodara, insofar as it restores only one salary increment
to the petitioner while confirming the stoppage of one
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17078/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
salary increment with future effect, as imposed by the
respondent authority vide order dated 30.04.2009.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a
conductor and had remained on unauthorized leave
during the period from 17.08.2008 to 05.09.2008.
Pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice and
chargesheet, respondent No.1 imposed a punishment of
stoppage of two increments with future effect. The said
punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the
learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.17 of
2014. The learned Tribunal, while partly allowing the
Reference, modified the punishment by reducing it to
stoppage of one increment with future effect. Aggrieved
by the said modification, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Pranjal Patel for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.H.C.Naidu for the
respondents.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pranjal Patel submits that both the
learned authority and the learned Tribunal have erred in
not properly appreciating the explanation tendered by
the petitioner for his absence during the period from
17.08.2008 to 05.09.2008. Learned advocate Mr. Pranjal
Patel submits that the petitioner was suffering from
malaria during the said period and, accordingly, had
produced a medical certificate issued by Mahavir Clinic,
which clearly stated that rest was medically advised.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17078/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
Despite this, the authorities have discarded the said
medical certificate without assigning any justifiable
reason. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, therefore, submits
that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set
aside, and the punishment imposed by the respondent
authority be declared illegal and unsustainable.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.C. Naidu submits that
the certificates relied upon by the petitioner, as part of
the present petition, pertain to the years 2009 and 2011
and, admittedly, there is no certificate on record
indicating that the petitioner was suffering from malaria
during the relevant period of absence. Learned advocate
Mr. H.C. Naidu submits that even if the explanation
offered by the petitioner is accepted for the sake of
argument, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to inform
the respondent authority in advance and apply for leave
on the ground of sickness. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu
further submits that the petitioner has a history of
indiscipline, with 21 defaults recorded against him, out of
which 10 instances were of unauthorized absence.
Learned advocate Mr. Naidu further submits that
considering the habitual nature of the petitioner's
misconduct and the fact that the explanation for the
present absence is unsupported by any
contemporaneous documentary evidence, the learned
Tribunal was fully justified in modifying the punishment
to stoppage of one increment with future effect. Learned
advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the original order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17078/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
punishment dated 30.04.2009 was challenged only in the
year 2014, after an inordinate delay of more than five
years, and on this ground as well, the impugned order
deserves to be upheld. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.
Naidu submits that no error has been committed by the
learned Tribunal and the present petition is required to
be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and on
perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record
along with the memo of the petition, it emerges as an
undisputed fact that the petitioner remained
unauthorizedly absent for the period from 17.08.2008 to
05.09.2008. The departmental inquiry was initiated
against the petitioner, during which a certificate dated
30.08.2008 issued by Dr. Gunwant Shah was produced.
However, the said certificate does not indicate any
specific illness as claimed by the petitioner. The other
medical certificates relied upon by the petitioner pertain
to the years 2009 and 2011, which are subsequent to the
period of unauthorized absence and, therefore, do not
substantiate the petitioner's explanation for the relevant
period. The petitioner, being a public servant and holding
the post of conductor, was duty-bound to seek prior
permission or inform the authority in case of illness. The
default card placed on record by the respondent reveals
that the petitioner had committed 21 defaults in total, out
of which 10 were for unauthorized absence. It also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17078/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
appears that punishments were imposed earlier for such
misconduct.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the learned
Tribunal has shown sufficient leniency by modifying the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority from
stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect to
stoppage of one yearly increment with future effect. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, no further
indulgence is warranted in favour of the petitioner.
9. Resultatnly, the petition, being devoid of merits, is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
