Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Dinubhai Vyas S/O Dinubhai ... vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5017 of 2020
==========================================================
BHARATKUMAR DINUBHAI VYAS S/O DINUBHAI VYAS
Versus
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the
following main prayer.
" 8A. issue a rate of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ in the nature certiorari or any other
writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned (i) Order
No.KAPS/Admin/Per/907/99-05, dated 19.01.1999 (at
Annexure-1 hereto) and also (ii) Order
No.NPC/CO/ED/(O)/BDV/99/220, dated 30.10.1999 (at
Annexure-2 hereto), (iii) Communication No.KAPS/Admn-
Per/06/07/907/2002/196, dated 11.07.2002 (at Annexure-3
hereto), insofar as it seeks to award a different and
higher penalty against the petitioner hearing in total
violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India rendered in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh versus Raj Pal Singh, thereby violating the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of India in Articles 12, 14 and 16;
(B) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other
writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned (i)
Communication No.KAPS/Admn-Per/06/07/907/2002/196,
dated 11.07.2002 (at Annexure-3 hereto), also (ii) the
recent Communication bearing No.KAPS/HR/Estt/6/7/2017-
428, dated 16.11.2017 (at Annexure-4 hereto), holding
and declaring the same to be ex-facie arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory on the part of
the respondent authorities in NPCIL;
(C) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or
any other writ or order, commanding / directing the
respondents herein to forthwith further modify and
reduce the originally modified penalty of reduction to
lower grade of Tradesman 'B' in the time scale of pay of
Rs.3050-75-3950-80-450/- for a period of 5 years, imposed
on the petitioner herein by means of the impugned
documents at Annexure-1 & 2 hereto, by award of
'reduction of pay to a lower stage in the very scale of
Rs.4000-6000/- for a period of 3 years' as has been done
in the case of the aforesaid co-delinquent Shri R.C.
Ashara by the Appellate Authority on 23.10.1998 followed
by the confirmation of the same by the Revisional
Authority on 30.10.1999, with all consequential benefits
(including the pay revision, promotion, arrears of salary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
arising therefrom etc.) which the petitioner herein is
otherwise entitled to as a sequel to the aforesaid further
modification of the originally modified penalty;"
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned advocate Ms. Himanshi R. Balodi for the
petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority while
imposing the reduced penalty vide order dated 17.01.1999 has
meted out a discriminatory treatment against the petitioner
vis-a-vis the reduced penalty which the very same appellate
authority had awarded to the co-delinquent. She has further
submitted that though the allegations levelled against the
petitioner and the co-delinquent are identical and similar and
both of them have candidly admitted their guilt, the
concerned authority ought to have awarded the same
punishment to the petitioner like the co-delinquent. In
support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh V Raj Pal Singh reported in 2002 (4) AWC 2946 SC.
She has also submitted that such a stand of the respondent
authority is untenable in law as the reasons assigned for the
refusal to refer to the petitioners case to CMD are contrary
to the facts and law. She has also submitted that it is not
legal and valid for the respondent authorities to take a stand
that has no sufficient and justified reasons / merits were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
found in the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2017 for
forwarding of the same to the CMD. She has submitted that
there is a genuine and bona fide delay in approaching this
Court by the petitioner and is not a deliberate, willful or
wanton or is actuated by any malafide motive on the part of
the petitioner. She is submitted that it was only very
recently that the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid
ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Raj Pal Singh (supra). She has submitted that the case of
the petitioner is continuing course of action every month and
therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. In
support of her submissions, she has relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R.
Gupta versus Union of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 669.
3.2 She has, in support of her submissions, also relied
upon the decisions of the : (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Union of India V Tarsem Singh reported
in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and (ii) Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Kashmira Arunkumar Thakkar versus Union of
India recorded on Special Civil Application No.17189 of 2017
dated 20.01.2022.
3.3 She has submitted that this petition may be
allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
4.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Gadhia for the
respondent has vehemently opposed this petition. He has
drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in
reply filed by the respondent authorities and has submitted
that the respondent authorities have rightly considered the
case of the petitioner. He has submitted that considering the
gravity of charges level against the petitioner, the penalty is
very lenient and not proportionate to the charges; and that
the petitioner himself has admitted the charges levelled
against him; and that the petitioner was given sufficient
opportunity to present his case at every stage of the
proceedings, therefore, the principles of natural justice have
been complied with by the respondent authorities; and that it
is for the domestic Tribunal to decide the appropriate
punishment which has been done and reduced on appeal; and
that the petitioner is trying to draw negative equality that
too after 20 years and after getting promotions regularly also;
and that the petitioner has slept over their rights for almost
two decades, therefore, he cannot claim equality with others.
He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Orissa versus Mamta
Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, more particularly
para : 54 thereof and has submitted that this petition may
be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
4.2 He has submitted that the petitioner was a
Secretary of the KAPP Employees' Cooperative Thrift and
Credit Society Limited and had siphoned a large amount
from the Credit Society during the period from 1992 to 1997;
and that there were 46 charges of misappropriation on the
petitioner; and that after issuing charge sheet, the petitioner
voluntarily gave a confession letter and accepted all the
charges unconditionally, therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief as prayed for in this petition. At this
stage, he has submitted that the petitioner approached
disciplinary authority; thereafter appellate authority and
thereafter reviewing authority and all the authorities have
rightly passed the appropriate orders.
4.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil
Kumar Upadhyay versus Director General, SSB reported in
(2022) 20 SCC 608 and has submitted that the present
petition may be dismissed.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record. From the record,
it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Tradesman 'B' in the year 1988 with the respondent
authorities. Thereafter he was promoted, redesignated
Tradesman 'C' in the year 1997 and thereafter in Tradesman
'D', the petitioner came to be placed under suspension in
contemplation of a departmental disciplinary inquiry
proceedings along with one Mr.R.C. Ashara, the charges
levelled against the petitioner and Mr.R.C. Ashara are for
misappropriation of amount from the Credit Society during
the period from 1992 to 1997, there were 46 charges of
misappropriation, the petitioner was holding the post of
Secretary in that Credit Society, the another person was
holding post of Treasurer of the very Credit Society, both
were suspended by the respondent authorities.
5.2 Further, the petitioner has submitted his written
statement of defence and admitted his guilt and the co-
delinquent has also admitted his guilt. In view of the
admission of the petitioner, the respondent authorities
dismissed the petitioner from service and the co-delinquent
was also dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
and the co-delinquent has also preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner start from
here that the Appellate Authority has imposed penalty of
reduction of pay to the lower stage of Rs.4500/- for a period
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
of three years in lieu of dismissal in the case of co-
delinquent, whereas the Appellate Authority has passed
penalty order in the case of petitioner to reduction to lower
grade of Tradesmen 'B' in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-
75-3950-80-4500 for a period of five years with a further
direction that until he is found fit after five years from the
date of the order to be restored to the grade of Tradesman
'D' in lieu of dismissal.
5.3 Both the persons were reinstated in service as per
the order of the Appellate Authority and they have resumed
their duties. By a efflux of time, the petitioner got various
promotions and ultimately, after reaching the age of
superannuation, the petitioner has retired from the services
during the pendency of this petition. In the meantime, the
petitioner has approached the the review committee for
reconsideration of his case and the review committee has in
turn operate the decision of the appellate authority.
5.4 By way of this petition, the petitioner has raised
a grievance that though the petitioner and the co-delinquent
Mr.Ashara, both were facing almost similar charges and
punishment of dismissal, the Appellate Authority has passed
discriminatory order and thereby different punishment were
awarded. It is noted that the petitioner has not challenged
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
the said so-called discriminatory order of the Appellate
Authority which was of the year 1999 and in turn, the
Reviewing Authority's order which was passed of the year
2002, before this Court after about 18 years of delay. The
petitioner has challenged those orders before this Court in
this petition that too without explaining the delay and
without giving sufficient cause for the said delay. Therefore,
this petition is required to be dismissed on this ground
alone.
5.5 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of Orissa and Another versus Mamta Mohanty reported
in (2011) 3 SCC 436, more particularly para : 54 thereof,
which reads as under.
"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention
that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay
and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court
after coming to know of the relief granted by teh Court
in a similary cas as the same cannot furnish a proper
explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake
up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the
judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time."
5.6 Additionally the petitioner was a Secretary of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
KAPP Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society
Limited and had siphoned of a large amount from the Credit
Society during the period of about five years i.e. from the
year 1992 to 1997. There were around 46 charges of
misappropriation upon the petitioner. The petitioner has
voluntarily gave a confession letter and accepted all the
charges unconditionally before the concerned authority and
therefore considering the gravity of the charges of
misappropriation of huge amount, the disciplinary authority
has passed the dismissal order. However, the Appellate
Authority has taken humanitarian and social grounds,
reinstated the petitioner with lessor punishment.
5.7 Further, the petitioner was given sufficient
opportunity to present his case before the Disciplinary
Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority and
all the authorities have, after considering the submissions as
well as documents produced by the petitioner, passed the
appropriate orders. Further, the petitioner is trying to draw
negative equality, that too after about 20 years and also that
too after getting various promotions, which cannot be
permitted. The petitioner has committed misappropriation of
amount of the Credit Society where he was a Secretary,
accepted his guilt unconditionally, dismissal order was passed
on that basis by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Authority has reduced the punishment and reinstated the
petitioner in service, the petitioner approached the Reviewing
Authority thereafter and now raised grievance regarding the
order passed by the Appellate Authority of lessor punishment
in lieu of dismissal at this belated stage i.e. after about 18
years, is not permissible at all. As quoted above, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has, time and again, held that you
can cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus
from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had
approached the Court within a reasonable time. In the
present case, it is a delay of two decades, this petition
therefore needs to be rejected.
5.8 It is fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus
Director General, SSB reported in (2022) 20 SCC 608,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely
because one of the employees was inflicted with a laser
punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment
imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case
of another employee hire punishment is warranted and
inflicted by disciplinary authority after due application of
mind and therefore there cannot be any negative
discrimination.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
6. In view of above, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
