Gujarat High Court
Rameshchandra N. Dabhi vs The High Court Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 315 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6903 of 1999
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 315 of 2025
==========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA N. DABHI
Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VAIBHAV V GOSWAMY(9019) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 18/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who was
the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge
challenging the judgement and order dated 21.06.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition
was dismissed confirming the order of penalty of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
compulsory retirement. The order of penalty was so
passed on culmination of departmental proceedings
conducted by the District Court pursuant to a charge-
sheet issued to the appellant herein.
2. Briefly stated the facts were that the appellant was
working as a Junior Clerk in the court of Civil Judge,
Gogha, Bhavnagar. He was served with a charge-sheet
where essentially three charges were imputed, one of
them being demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.850/-
from one Shri Mahesh Sindhi - elder brother of accused
for getting him released on bail. Based on the charge-
sheet so issued, an inquiry was conducted wherein six
witnesses were examined of which one was the
Magistrate who himself was, according to the learned
counsel for the appellant, charged for the same
transaction.
3. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the appellant
would submit that the inquiry was vitiated on the ground
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
that the very officer who was examined in the inquiry and
who prepared the preliminary report was facing the same
charge. Several other contentions which have been
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been
set out by the learned Single Judge in the order which is
under challenge before us.
4. Post the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary
authority, the appellant filed an appeal on the
administrative side of the High Court. We have the
benefit of the order of the appellate authority on the
administrative side. The appellate authority has
extensively dealt with the contentions so raised and
reiterated before us. From the findings of the appellate
authority, we find that the appellate authority as well as
the learned Single Judge who concurred with the findings
has held that the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the inquiry stood vitiated on the sole
ground of the Magistrate having prepared the preliminary
report is misconceived inasmuch as the preparation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
the report was also undertaken by the concerned District
Judge.
4.1 Considering the findings of the appellate authority
as recorded in paragraph no. 17 onwards, we find that
even in the cross examination the complainant Mr.
Mahesh Sindhi who otherwise had refused to sign the
statement of cross examination had admitted that an
amount of Rs.850/- was given towards bribe to the
appellant. We note from the findings of the appellate
authority that even the contention that the disciplinary
inquiry was vitiated on the grounds of violation of
principles of natural justice was not accepted by the
appellate authority as well as by the learned Single Judge
and in our opinion rightly so that the documents that
were demanded, if the contentions that were so raised by
the appellant that it violated the principles of natural
justice, it was not pressed by the appellant neither before
the Inquiry Officer nor before the disciplinary authority
that the documents were essential for his defence of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
denial proved.
5. Well settled it is that in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India that a writ court
cannot sit in appeal over the proceedings conducted in an
inquiry pursuant to which an order of penalty has been
imposed. We for the benefit of this order would like to
reproduce paragraphs no. 20.1 and 21 of the order of
learned Single Judge:
"20.1 But, in the facts of the present case, merely
because the Magistrate, against whom the
allegations of corruptions were made,
submitted the Preliminary Report cannot be said to
cause any bias to the petitioner, more particularly,
when the disciplinary authority, accepted the
report of the Inquiry conducted by the Civil Judge
(S.D.), Bhavnagar, was not part of Preliminary
Inquiry. Therefore, there was no question of any
bias, as sought to be canvassed by the learned
Advocate for the petitioner, in the facts of the case,
and hence, the said judgment relied on by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner of bias is
not applicable in the facts of this case.
21. On a perusal of the inquiry report as well as the
proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer as
well as the documents, which are forming the part
of the Inquiry Report and the decision of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/315/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025
undefined
appellate authority, the principle of bias is not
applicable, as there is no real bias emerging from
the facts of this case as pleaded by the petitioner.
The petitioner is found guilty of all the three
charges leveled against him, on the basis of the
evidence, oral as well as the documentary, which
have been appreciated during the course of inquiry
and which have been also elaborately considered
by the Appellate Authority, and therefore, while
exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same
cannot be interfered with, unless it is
shown on behalf of the petitioner that such findings
given by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the
appellate authority are perverse and contrary to
the facts and evidence on record. The learned
Advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out
any perversity in findings arrived at
by Inquiry Officer contradictory to the evidence on
record. The petition is therefore liable to be
dismissed."
6. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is
accordingly dismissed. Civil application stands disposed
of accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, ACJ)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
DIVYA
