Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Shri Dansang Bhovansinh Chauhan on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10900 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
SHRI DANSANG BHOVANSINH CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR)
No.173 of 2012 dated 21.12.2024, whereby the
learned Reference Court has substituted the
punishment of dismissal with simple discharge and
directed the present petitioner to pay the terminal
benefits to the respondent-employee.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent was serving on the post of driver with the
petitioner corporation at Jetpur Depot and had
contested the local authority election without taking
prior permission and without informing the petitioner
corporation about the same. The respondent was
subjected to a Departmental Inquiry, which resulted
in the order of dismissal dated 20.03.2012, and the
same was the subject matter of challenge before the
learned Reference Court by filing Reference (LCR)
No.173 of 2012.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.H.C.Naidu for the
petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that the learned
Labour Court has committed an error in exercising
powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act by
substituting the punishment of dismissal with
discharge simpliciter without assigning cogent
reasons. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu submits that
the respondent had contested the local authority
election and, for the same period, had submitted a
leave report citing household work as the reason for
absence. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu further submits
that though the learned Reference Court has
observed that the respondent committed misconduct
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
by not obtaining prior permission, it has overlooked
the aspect that false reasons were assigned while
applying for leave. Learned advocate Mr. Naidu
submits that the learned Labour Court has further
erred in observing that for a minor offence, the
capital punishment of dismissal was imposed.
Learned advocate Mr. Naidu points out that there are
21 defaults recorded in the respondent's default
card, which the learned Court failed to consider
before substituting the punishment. Therefore, the
impugned award deserves to be set aside, and the
petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner, certain
undisputed facts emerge from the record. The
respondent had served with the petitioner
Corporation from 01.09.1993 to 02.01.2012, i.e., for a
period of 19 years. On the date when the Reference
was decided, he was aged around 66 years. The
various defaults reported against him had been dealt
with in earlier departmental proceedings by imposing
different punishments, including stoppage of
increments without future effect. The only
misconduct for which the present chargesheet was
issued was that he participated in the election of a
local authority without obtaining prior permission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
from the petitioner Corporation. The learned
Reference Court, while assigning detailed reasons,
has observed that for such a minor offence, the
capital punishment of dismissal could not be
imposed, and therefore substituted the punishment
from dismissal to discharge.
6. At this stage, this Court has referred the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Collector
Singh vs. L.M.L. Ltd., reported in (2015) 2 SCC
410, wherein the Apex Court has held as under: .
"10.Insofar as the next limb of contention at the hands
of the learned counsel for the respondent as to the
quantum of punishment is concerned, it is not necessary
for us to refer to the plethora of judgments relied upon
by the respondent. In those decisions, the termination
of services was held to be justified on the basis of
abusive and filthy language in the light of the facts and
circumstances of those cases. It is well settled that the
court or the tribunal will not normally interfere with
the discretion of the disciplinary authority in imposing
of penalty and substitute its own conclusion or penalty.
But the punishment should be commensurate with the
proved misconduct. However, if the penalty imposed is
disproportionate with the misconduct committed and
proved, then the Court would appropriately mould the
relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10900/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to
shorten the litigation, it may in exceptional cases even
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof. This principle was reiterated in various
decisions of this Court in Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism
Development Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 8 SCC 9 : 2003 SCC
(L&S) 1198] , Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2
SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039] , Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806 :
AIR 1997 SC 3387] and Sardar Singh v. Union of India
[(1991) 3 SCC 213 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 503 : 1991 SCC
(L&S) 975 : (1992) 19 ATC 325] ."
7. Considering the above legal position and the facts
emerging from the record, in the opinion of this Court
though misconduct proved, however, proved
misconduct is not justified punishing the employees
by discharging or dismissing from the service. The
learned Reference Court, by giving reasonable,
rational and cogent reasons exercised its powers in
substituting the punishment of dismissal with that of
discharge. There is no infirmity in the impugned
award and, accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
