Gujarat High Court
Pradipbhai Lalbhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2198 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRADIPBHAI LALBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus, by quashing and setting aside
the office order / communication dated 16.03.2018 as well
as 12.11.2018 and further be pleased to direct the
respondent no. 4 to reinstate the
petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) with
continuity of service and all consequential benefits;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus, by directing the respondent no.
4 to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lok
Rakshak (unarmed);
(c) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed
fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition
are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that
the petitioner came to be appointed as Lok Rakshak by
the respondent no. 4 herein by office order dated
18.05.2017 after complying with all legal procedure and
after passing the due examination. The appointment of
the petitioner was legal and valid in the eyes of law to
which there would be no dispute. Thereafter, an FIR
came to be registered against the petitioner and five
other persons before Panshina Police Station being I-C.R.
No. 19 of 2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and
Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Pursuant to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
said FIR, investigation commenced and final report under
section 173 of the Cr.P.C. came to be submitted before
the learned J.M.F.C., Limbdi. Along with the said report,
the Investigating Officer had submitted a report stating
that no case under Section 395 of the IPC is made out
and therefore "B Summary" qua offence punishable under
section 395 of the IPC was submitted.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2017
passed by the respondent No. 4 appointing the petitioner
as Lok Rakshak, the petitioner was posted as Lok
Rakshak before Limbdi Police Station on 24.05.2017.
Lateron, by office order dated 16.03.2018, the
appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled on the
ground that the FIR is registered against the petitioner.
It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that learned J.M.F.C., Limbdi by order dated 06.06.2018
had accepted the "B Summary" submitted by the
Investigating Officer and offence under Section 395 of the
IPC was deleted. Later on, the original complainant of
the said complaint entered into settlement with the
petitioner along with two other persons namely
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Jayeshbhai Pethabhai Chauhan i.e. the accused No. 3
and Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan i.e. accused no. 5.
Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner along
with the above two persons had preferred Criminal Misc.
Application No. 14427 of 2018 for quashing of the FIR
and consequential proceedings. This Hon'ble Court by
order dated 05.09.2018, was pleased to quash the said
FIR along with all consequential proceedings.
2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that before this Court that the accused no. 3 of
the said FIR i.e. Jayesh Pethabhai Chauhan also came
to be appointed as Lok Rakshak by the DSP Rajkot
Rural by office order dated 18.05.2017. Likewise, the
accused no. 5 Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan was also
appointed as Lok Rakshak by office order dated 13/18-05-
2017. Both the above persons, who are the accused of
very same complaint, were also granted appointment and
posting orders. However, when the petitioner took charge
in Limbdi Police Station as Lok Rakshak, on the very
same day, the petitioner was relieved from the services.
It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that the FIR was quashed by this Court, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
had submitted an application dated 15.09.2018, requesting
the respondent no. 4 to reinstate him back in the
services as the FIR was also already quashed. The
respondent no. 4 by office order dated 12.11.2018
rejectedthe application of the petitioner on the ground
that by the order dated 16.03.2018, the services of the
petitioner were put to an end and therefore, nothing
further was required to be done. Hence, the present
petition has been preferred.
3. Heard Mr. Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents - State.
4.1 Mr. Vicky Mehta, learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that the action of other
respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner
for reinstatement on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed)
is bad, illegal and arbitrary and affects the fundamental
rights assured to the petitioner in the Constitution of
India. He has further submitted that the FIR in respect
of whom the appointment is cancelled, is already
quashed and set aside by this Court by order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
05.09.2018. Therefore, the respondent ought to have
considered the request of the petitioner dated 15.09.2018.
Therefore, the impugned is bad and deserves to be
quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that
the treatment given by the respondent is arbitrary and
discriminatory, inasmuch as one Shri Jayeshbhai
Pethabhai Chauhan and Kishorekumar Palabhai Chauhan
who are the accused of the very same FIR, were also
granted appointment despite the fact that FIR was
registered against them and are continued in the service,
whereas, by impugned communication dated 16.03.2018,
the services of the petitioner were put to an end on the
ground of pendency of the FIR which is already quashed
and set aside.
4.2 He has further submitted that the respondent no.
4 has stated that there is no provision for reinstating
the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4
ought to have considered that the case of the petitioner
was required to be considered on the ground that no
full-fledge trial was conducted against the petitioner and
the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings were quashed
by this Court on the ground of settlement. He has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
further submitted that since Jayeshkumar Pethabhai
Chauhan and Kishorebhai Palabhai Chauhan are
permitted to continue in the service despite the factum
of registration of FIR, the case of the petitioner was on
the same footing and therefore, the services of the
petitioner could not have been put to an end. Therefore,
the petitioner was required to be reinstated in the
service. He has further submitted that the petitioner
was also selected as Van Rakshak, however, on account
of being appointing as Lok Rakshak, the petitioner was
not able to join the said services at Van Rakshak and
ultimately, the said appointment stood cancelled by order
dated 08.03.2018. He has further submitted that on
account of being appointed as Lok Rakshak, the
petitioner had not accepted his appointment as Van
Rakshak. Even otherwise, the FIR pursuant to which,
the appointment stood cancelled is quashed by this
Court. He has further submitted that on the day, no
proceedings whatsoever was pending against the
petitioner. The petitioner is a meritorious candidate who
had secured excellent marks. Therefore, looking to the
candidature of the petitioner, the petitioner is required to
be reinstated. He has further submitted that the other
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
accused of the FIR are already working and discharging
their duties as Lok-Rakshak and, therefore, the treatment
given to the petitioner is arbitrary. Even otherwise, the
action of the respondents in not considering the case of
the petitioner for reinstating on the post of Lok Rakshak
(unarmed) is bad and illegal and deserves to be
interfered with. In support of his submissions, he has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others
reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 and has prayed to allow
the present petition.
5.1 Per contra, Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents - State has by
referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by concerned
Dy.S.P. has submitted that the petitioner has not
disclosed necessary details at the time of filling form
while giving declaration before the Authority about his
past criminal cases or criminal proceeding, which are
pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has
categorically stated "No" in such declaration though at
the time of declaration, which is filed by the petitioner,
at that point of time, the FIR against the petitioner was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
already lodged and was pending for the investigation. It
is required to note that the FIR is lodged against the
present petitioner on 21.04.2017 and declaration is given
at the time of process of recruitment subsequent to the
FIR without disclosing the fact that the FIR is already
filed against the present petitioner before Panshina Police
Station being I-C.R. No. 19 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of
the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
5.2 He has further submitted by referring to the
affidavit-in-reply that subsequent acquittal of the
petitioner has no relevance as the termination or removal
was based on conduct of the petitioner for not disclosing
the correct facts at the time of appointment and thereby,
misleading the concerned Authority, which has led to the
loss of confidence. He has further submitted that it is
also relevant that the petitioner is already in service of
Lok Rakshak in Surat City since the year 2020 and the
said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and the
petitioner has never disclosed this said fact and,
therefore also, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed. He has also submitted that as such, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
petitioner was initially appointed for five years on the
basis of contractual terms and his services can be
terminated more particularly considering the fact that the
petitioner is involved in serious offence like Section 395
of the I.P.C. and, therefore, there is no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned decision taken by the
respondent Authority for terminating the services of the
petitioner and, therefore, he has submitted that the
present petition is required to be dismissed.
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner
was appointed as Lok Rakshak purely on the contractual
basis as temporary employee, which is required to be
confirmed after having satisfactory completion of five
years of service. During the process of the recruitment
as part of the process, the petitioner has filed
declaration by stating certain details in the declaration
and one of the details is that whether any complaint is
filed against the petitioner or pending at the time of
filing of the declaration and petitioner has mentioned in
the said declaration as "No" against that call, which is
found incorrect in view of the FIR, which was already
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
filed against the present petitioner before Panshina Police
Station being I-C.R. No. 19 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of
the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
6.2 Furthermore, one more aspect, which is required to
be considered is that; considering the conduct of the
petitioner that though he has got the job as Lok
Rakshak in the year 2020 as per affidavit-in-reply, the
petitioner has not disclosed this fact during the pendency
of the proceeding before this Court by filing appropriate
affidavit. Moreover considering the fact that when the
petitioner has suppressed such relevant fact by making
false declaration at the time of appointment; employer
has all authority to terminate the services of such
employee as employer might have lost the confidence in
such employee due to such false declaration. Otherwise
also, it is expected in such disciplined force like the
present one where the petitioner is selected as Lok
Rakshak, the standard of high integrity and all fairness
and in view of the above, the petitioner is not found fit
to get any sympathy from this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
6.3 It is fruitful to consider the judgment relied upon
by learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 23, 24
and 30 are relevant. The facts of that case are different
from the facts of the present case. There is no quarrel
about the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in aforesaid judgment. Considering the fact
that in that case, the employees are permanent
employees and also considering the nature of offence, and
the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that in case of moral
turpitude only, such harsh punishment can be imposed.
In the present case, the offence is registered under
the provisions of Sections 395, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of
the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and
also considering the fact that the petitioner at the
relevant point of time has not disclosed the correct facts
while filing declaration. Hence, the petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief.
6.4 Furthermore, on the contrary, the petitioner has
tried to abuse the process of law by filing such petition
and, therefore, considering the suppression before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2198/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Authority as well as non-disclosure of the subsequent
development before this Court, this Court found that this
is a fit case where the token cost is required to be
imposed on the present petitioner. Therefore, cost of
Rs.10,000/- is imposed, which shall be paid by the
petitioner before the Gujarat State Legal Services
Authority within two weeks from today and receipt of
the same shall be produced before the Registry.
7. With the above observation, the present petition is
dismissed with the aforesaid cost. Notice stands
discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
