[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Union Of India vs Mahesh Raja (Rakshak) on 3 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/153/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 153 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Versus
MAHESH RAJA (RAKSHAK)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 03/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
employer, the Union of India, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), challenging the judgment and decree dated
03.08.2002 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1990, by the 6th
Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot. This judgment partly allowed the appeal
filed by the employee-respondent herein, Mahesh Raja, which challenged
the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1309 of 1985
dated 21.11.1990. The challenge was limited to the denial of back-wages
and the nature of the lesser punishment imposed, as the Civil Suit filed by
the employee had already been allowed, and the respondent was ordered
to be reinstated in service.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/153/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per
their original status in the suit.
3. The plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1309 of 1985, for
declaration and injunction against the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, removing him from service vide Order dated 07.11.1985.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was removed from service for
the charge: "On 02.08.1983 between 14.00 to 14.30 hrs., he took away
Bicycle No. 70549 (Hercules make) belonging to SOR's office-Rajkot,
kept in office of SOR/RJT and disposed it off illegally."
5. The plaintiff contended that the order of removal was illegal and
challenged it by filing the present suit.
6. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement.
The Trial Court allowed the suit, holding the order of removal from
service to be unconstitutional and against the provisions of law, and
directed the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff while imposing a lesser
punishment by Order dated 21.11.1990.
7. Accordingly, the Railway authority re-instated the plaintiff on
28.01.1991. The punishment imposed was reduction of pay to the
minimum stage for the period of 4 years, with cumulative effect. The
intervening period between 18.11.1985 to 27.01.1991 was treated as 'no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/153/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
work, no pay' vide order dated 27.01.1991.
8. Aggrieved by the denial of back-wages and the nature of the
punishment, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1990. The
First Appellate Court, by the judgment dated 03.08.2002, partly allowed
the appeal. It modified the punishment of reduction of pay to the
minimum stage for 4 years, from with cumulative effect to without
cumulative effect, and considered the intervening period as continuous
service for all purposes, without back-wages. Hence, the present appeal
has been filed by the Union of India - employer.
9. This Court, vide order dated 19.09.2003, admitted the present
Appeal on the following Substantial Question of Law:
"Whether the First Appellate Court has, having upheld the
guilt established against the delinquent, jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority?"
10. Learned advocate for the defendant/appellant principally argued
that the Appellate Court erred in partly confirming the judgment of the
Trial Court. It was submitted that both the Appellate Court and the Trial
Court committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the punishment
orders, especially after holding that the charges leveled against the
plaintiff were proved.
11. It was argued that the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to
interfere with the punishment order if the charges are held to be proved,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/153/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority should not have
been substituted.
12. None appeared for the respondent herein - original plaintiff.
13. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, and having
considered the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court, along with the plaint and annexed documents, the fact
remains that the plaintiff, was working as a Rakshak at ER Coy Rajkot.
14. The plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated
07.11.1985. He filed Civil Suit No. 1309 of 1985, and the Civil Court,
vide order dated 21.11.1990, ordered his reinstatement but with a
direction to impose a lesser punishment.
15. The Appellate Court, by the judgment dated 03.08.2002, modified
the punishment to reduction of pay to the minimum for 4 years without
cumulative effect. Crucially, the plaintiff was not awarded any back-
wages, and the modification of the punishment was done to ensure
proportionality.
16. The Appellate Court, while confirming the finding of guilt,
observed that the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment is
limited but exists when the penalty is found to be grossly disproportionate
to the proved misconduct. By modifying the punishment from one with
cumulative effect to one without cumulative effect, the Appellate Court
rightly struck a balance, upholding the disciplinary action while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/153/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2025
undefined
mitigating its long-term financial severity on the employee, who was re-
instated.
17. It has also come on record that the plaintiff, has since retired, and
all his accounts, including final settlement payment and pension, have
been settled. In view of these facts, the Appellate Court, having upheld
the guilt established against the delinquent, had the jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority to ensure proportionality and meet the ends of justice.
18. In view of the same, the present Second Appeal is dismissed.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
RAJAT YADAV
