Gujarat High Court
Jamal Noormohmed Shaikh vs Union Of India-Thro' Secretaryto ... on 16 July, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 25/06/2025
Pronounced On : 16/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6494 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
JAMAL NOORMOHMED SHAIKH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA-THRO' SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS HARDIKA VYAS(11450) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for
short "the CAT") in Original Application No.256 of 2007 and further to
quash and set aside the original order of penalty dated 24.10.2006 passed
by respondent No.3, which was substituted by an order dated 03.04.2007,
passed by respondent no.4 to the extent of reducing the penalty from
dismissal to compulsory retirement and also to grant all consequential
benefits, including promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.
2. The facts, in brief of the case, are that at the relevant point of time,
the petitioner was serving as an Inspector of Central Excise at Central
Excise Division-II, Ahmedabad and served with the charge-memo dated
19.06.1998 levelling two charges that - (i) the petitioner colluded with
Mr.M.J.Doshi and Mr. K. Valson Chandrasekhar and other private
individuals, including the Custom House Agents to facilitate the
smuggling of Ball Bearings into India under the guise of Lead Scrap; and
(ii) the petitioner induced 2 Dock Appraisers, Mr.Ajoy Banik and Mr.J.N.
Meena further to the illegal act of smuggling of Ball Bearings into India
under the guise of Lead Scrap.
2.1 The inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report
dated 29.11.1999 holding the charges as not proved against the petitioner.
However, in the interregnum period, the Customs Adjudication Case was
decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, who,
by an order dated 29.11.1999, exonerated the petitioner and all other
Customs Officers implicated in the offence for violations of the
provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, respondent No.3
preferred an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner
(Adjudication) before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
Tribunal (CEGAT), which came to be rejected by an order dated
25.06.2003. The said order came to be challenged before the Supreme
Court by way of Civil Appeal No.10347 of 2011 and other allied matters,
wherein the Supreme Court, by order dated 02.08.2017 dismissed the
appeal preferred by respondent No.3 and confirmed the order passed by
the CEGAT.
2.2 However, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Note of
Disagreement dated 11.09.2000 disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry
Officer dated 29.11.1999 and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner
and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of
compulsory retirement vide order dated 16.03.2001, which later on,
modified to the extent of compulsory retirement with 25% cut in pension
for a period of 10 years.
2.3 Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the appellate authority, who, by an order dated 16.01.2002, upheld
the punishment of compulsory retirement while setting aside the penalty
of 25% cut in pension for a period of 10 years. Against which, the
petitioner preferred OA No.241 of 2002 before the CAT, wherein, by an
order dated 23.04.2004, the CAT was pleased to quash and set aside the
order of the appellate authority and the Disciplinary Authority on the
ground that the CVC Advice in case of the petitioner was not supplied to
him and non-speaking notice was issued to the petitioner and hence, the
matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority; with a direction
to provide the CVC Advise to the petitioner and issue a speaking show-
cause notice to the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
2.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was supplied with a
copy of the CVC Advice and ultimately the petitioner submitted his reply
dated 14.11.2005, and also submitted further representation dated
26.10.2006. Considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority passed an
order dated 24.10.2006, whereby penalty of dismissal from service was
imposed upon the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before respondent No.4, wherein, as per order dated 03.04.2007,
the penalty was reduced from dismissal from service to compulsory
retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred OA No.256 of
2007 before the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench, which came to be rejected by
order dated 13.03.2009 confirming the order passed by the respondent
authorities dated 03.04.2007 modifying the order of penalty of dismissal
from service to the extent of compulsory retirement. Under the above
circumstances, the present petition came to be filed.
3. Now, before adverting to the submissions made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to
mention herein the fate of the other co-delinquents, who had been served
with the similar charge-memo(s) containing similar charges like the
petitioner, against whom the inquiry was recommended and ultimately,
against some of them the charges came to be dropped; against some of
them, the orders of punishment were quashed and set aside by the CAT or
by this Court or by the Supreme Court and the said co-delinquents came
to be superannuated on attainting the age of superannuation. The co-
delinquents are viz. (1) Mr.Z.B.Nagarkar, (2) Mr.K Valson
Chandrasekhar, (3) Mr.M.J.Doshi, (4) Mr.Ajoy Banik, and (5) Mr.J.N.
Meena.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
4. In the case of co-delinquent, Mr.Z.B.Nagarkar, who was issued the
charge-memo dated 26.10.1999 and the Directorate General of Vigilance
recommended dropping of the departmental proceedings by way of a note
dated 20.06.2001, which was accepted and by way of the Presidential
Order dated 02.11.2001, the departmental proceedings against the said
co-delinquent were dropped. The said co-delinquent superannuated at the
post of Commissioner.
5. In so far as the case of co-delinquent - Mr. K. Valson
Chandrasekhar is concerned, the charge-memo dated 19.06.1998 was
issued to him. The Inquiry Officer, vide his report dated 29.11.1999 held
the charges to be not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority vide
order dated 11.09.2000 issued a Note for Disagreement and subsequently,
the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 10.08.2001 imposed
penalty of dismissal from service and the appellate authority upheld the
said punishment. The said order has been assailed before the CAT by
filing OA No.324 of 2002 and by the order dated 23.04.2004, the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority were
quashed and set aside on the ground that the CVC Advise was not
provided to the said delinquent and that the Disagreement Note was not in
accordance with law. However, the Disciplinary Authority, after
revisiting the inquiry, passed the order of dismissal, which was upheld by
the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The co-delinquent
challenged the said orders before the CAT by filing OA No.459 of 2012,
wherein, by the judgement dated 27.08.2014, the CAT directed the
respondents to reinstate the said delinquent; with all consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
benefits, which has attained finality; in absence of any challenge. The
said co-delinquent superannuated at the post of Assistant Commissioner.
6. Similarly, in the case of co-delinquent Mr.M.J. Doshi, a charge-
memo dated 12.06.1998 was issued to him and the Inquiry Officer by his
report dated 28.12.1999 held the charges against the said delinquent as
not proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a Note of Disagreement
and eventually, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal
from service by the order dated 20.02.2007, which came to be challenged
before the CAT by filing OA No.170 of 2007, wherein, by an order dated
30.09.2008, the order of the Disciplinary Authority was set aside and the
matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the
delinquent sought to challenge both the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority imposing penalty of dismissal and the order of the CAT dated
30.09.2008 by preferring Special Civil Application No.9493 of 2010
before this Court, wherein, by the order dated 09.07.2015, the Coordinate
Bench was pleased to dispose of the said petition with a direction to the
respondents to conclude the inquiry on or before 22.11.2015; failing
which the delinquent will be entitled for reinstatement. However, the
Department failed to adhere to the said time limit and filed Misc. Civil
Application No.3296 of 2015 for extension of time; wherein a fresh time
limit upto 24.05.2016 was granted, which also was not adhered to by the
Department, which prompted the delinquent to prefer Special Civil
Application No.3218 of 2019 before this Court praying for dropping of
the departmental proceedings against him and to grant all consequential
benefits and this Court, by an order dated 20.08.2019, held that the
delinquent was entitled for all benefits and that the inquiry proceedings
had to be treated as if there was no inquiry at all. Against the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
decision, respondent-Department preferred of Special Leave Petition (C)
Diary No.46089 of 2019 before the Supreme Court, which came to be
rejected by the order dated 17.01.2020. Consequently, the said co-
delinquent was given notional benefit with the post of Deputy
Commissioner.
7. In the case of co-delinquents - Mr.Ajoy Banik and Mr.J.N. Meena,
who were the Appraisers at the time of the incident, the Inquiry Officer,
vide his reports dated 19.11.1999 and 30.10.1999 respectively, held the
charges to be not proved, which was accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority. However, the CVC, by its communication dated 28.03.2001,
recommended imposition of major penalty and against the said
communication, the co-delinquents preferred OA No.875 of 2001 and OA
No.49 of 2002 before the CAT, Mumbai Bench, which came to be
allowed by way of common orders. The Department challenged the said
order before the High Court of Bombay by filing Writ Petition No.2478
of 2003, which also came to be rejected by the order dated 11.09.2009,
which has attained finality. Both the co-delinquents superannuated at the
post of Additional Commissioner.
SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER :
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rockey has submitted that
the respondent - Department has failed to prove the existence of Ball
Bearings smuggled under the guise of Lead Scrap and in the absence of
the respondent being able to prove the existence of such Ball Bearings in
the consignments in question, the charge against the present petitioner
does not find any substance. He has further submitted that an inquiry has
been held against the petitioner and the charges are not found to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
been proved against him.
9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rockey has further
submitted that on one hand the respondent-Department had accepted the
recommendation to drop the departmental proceedings qua the co-
delinquent - Mr.Z.B. Nagarkar, who has been postulated as the main
perpetrator in the entire episode. Thus, it is contended that by not
extending the similar treatment in case of the petitioner is indicative of
the biased approach on the part of the respondent authorities qua the
petitioner. Moreover, when the charges against the said Mr.Nagarkar
were much more grave and there was clear allegation of the said officer
having received Rs.8,00,000/-, which was stated in a statement made by
one Mr.Solly Perumal, respondent-Department in its Note took the
decision to drop the departmental proceedings against the said officer and
thereby gave a clean chit in the custom proceedings. However, the
Department has selectively opted to pursue the charges against the
petitioner, while closing the proceedings against the said Mr. Nagarkar
which shows the bias stand taken by the respondent-Department.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Rockey appearing for the petitioner has
further submitted that respondent No.3 has exhibited double standard in
accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of other two co-
delinquents, who were serving as Appraiser. It is submitted that when
considering the second charge issued in the charge-memo to the
petitioner, which related to inducing the very same appraisers to facilitate
the smuggling of ball bearings and when the charges against the said
appraisers could not found to have been proved, then there cannot be any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
question of the petitioner having induced the said officers and thus, even
on this count, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration.
11. It is further submitted that the co-delinquents - Mr.M.J. Doshi and
Mr.K.Valson Chandrasekhar, who were facing the similar such charges
like the petitioner, came to be reinstated in services after having
undergone the judicial proceedings; the petitioner could not be said to
have committed an act of colluding with other officers. Thus, even on this
count too, the petitioner was required to be reinstated in service.
12. It is further submitted that the CAT has gravely erred in not
considering the case of the petitioner on parity with the co-delinquents
viz. Mr. Nagarkar and the Appraisers Mr. Banik and Mr. Meena. It is
submitted that the impugned order of the CAT suffers from total non-
application of mind; in as much as it failed to appreciate the fact that the
charges against Mr.Nagarkar were far more serious than against the
petitioner and thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
13. To substantiate his stance, the learned advocate for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the decisions in the cases of - (1) Naresh
Chandra Bharadwaj vs. Bank of India, 2019 (15) S.C.C. 786; (2)
Kashmira Arunkumar Thakkar vs. Union Of India, 2022 (3) G.L.R. 2359;
(3) I.N.Gosai vs. Chief Engineer (District) Gujarat Electricity Board,
2018 (0) JX (Guj.) 638; and (4) Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Sh. Raj
Kumar, rendered in LPA No.410 of 2023 & CM APPL.No.53223 of
2024.
14. By making above submissions, the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
petitioner would submit to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
15. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Hardikka Vyas appearing
for respondents No.2 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner was facing
serious charges and the authority, after holding a detailed departmental
inquiry, held him guilty of the charges levelled against him; the decision
thereof has been affirmed by the CAT and, therefore, this Court may not
interfere with the said finding.
16. While referring to the statement of one Shri Solly Perumal,
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Senior
Intelligence Officer, DRI, Ahmedabad, dated 29.12.1993, learned
advocate Ms.Hardikka Vyas has submitted that the petitioner has been
directly involved in the alleged act and the authority, after considering the
evidence produced before it, has held the petitioner guilty of the charges
levelled against him.
17. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas for the respondents no.2 and 4 has
further submitted that the findings of exoneration in respect of the co-
delinquents rendered either by the CAT or by this Court cannot be made
applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner faced with the
departmental inquiry and on the basis of the evidence available with the
authority against him, the order of punishment was passed against him
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner and other co-
delinquents were on the same footing and hence, such benefit should have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
been extended to the petitioner.
18. While referring to the findings of the CAT in the impugned order,
learned advocate Ms.Vyas submitted that the CAT has in detailed
considered the material produced before it, more particularly the
statement of said Mr.Soli Perumal and confirmed the decision of the
Department and thereby dismissed the OA. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas
would therefore submit that this Court may not interfere with the said
findings.
19. In support of her submissions, learned advocate Ms.Vyas for the
respondents no.2 and 4 have placed reliance upon the decisions of - (1)
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education.
vs. K. S. Gandhi and Ors., 1991 (2) S.C.C. 716, (2) Lalit Popli vs. Canara
Bank & Ors., AIR 2003 S.C. 1796, and (3) Union of India vs. P.K.
Sharma, [W.P. (C) No. 6984/2009].
20. By making the above submissions, learned Advocate Ms.Vyas for
respondents no.2 and 4 would submit to dismiss the present petition.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
21. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and on examining the impugned orders passed by the respondent-
Department, which have been confirmed by the CAT, the undisputed
facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was facing similar charges
that of the co-delinquents, who also stood on the same footing came to be
exonerated either by way of dropping of the proceedings by the
Department or by quashing and setting aside the order of punishment by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
the CAT or by this Court or by the Supreme Court, as the case may be.
This fact has not been denied by the respondent-Department. It is
shocking to note that in case of Mr. M.J. Doshi, though the specific
direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 20/08/2019 in the writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.3218 of 2019 filed by him to
complete the inquiry after remand, and even after the dismissal order
having being confirmed by the President, the respondent - Department
remained indolent, and allowed him to retire, without any orders having
been passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have been
unable to point out any distinguishing feature between the case of the
petitioner and other delinquents.
22. Undisputably, the petitioner, who was served with the charge-
sheet, after completion of the inquiry, found that the said charges were
not proved against him and simultaneously, in the customs proceedings,
the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), exonerated the petitioner
and all other Customs Officers implicated in the offence for violations of
the provisions of the Customs Act, which has been confirmed upto the
Supreme Court. However, the Disciplinary Authority, on a Note of
Disagreement, disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, issued a
show-cause notice to the petitioner and thereby imposed punishment of
compulsory retirement; which later on, modified to the extent of
compulsory retirement with 25% cut in pension for a period of 10 years
against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate
authority, who upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement and
quashed and set aside the penalty of 25% cut in pension for a period of 10
years. The petitioner approached the CAT, which held that the CVC
Advice in case of the petitioner was not supplied to him and non-speaking
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
notice was issued to the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to
the disciplinary authority. The petitioner, having supplied with a copy of
the CVC Advice and considering the reply and representation of the
petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 24.10.2006,
whereby penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the present
petitioner; which later on, was reduced to the compulsory retirement.
23. Thus, from the narration of the above facts, it clearly emerges that
though the co-delinquents facing similar such charges like the petitioner
have been extended the benefits, who got retired on the basis of either
dropping of charges or on the basis of outcome of litigation rendered in
their favour; while the petitioner appears to have been made a scapegoat;
by not extending similar benefits ignoring the principle of parity as has
been accorded in the case of co-delinquents.
24. In context of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the legal proposition as
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Chandra
Bhardwaj vs. Bank Of India & Ors., AIR 2019 SC 2075, is relevant to
refer where the Apex Court has held thus:
"7. There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be
propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been succinctly
summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as
follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of
punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the
departmental authorities.
19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental
authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to
be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is
found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent
employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass
appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what
should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para (d) above, would be in
those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the
disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or
the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on
the Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and
the codelinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete
parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent
conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If co-
delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology
lesser punishment to him would be justifiable." (emphasis supplied)
25. Thus, the sum and substance of the principle laid down by the
Supreme Court culminates with the fact that when the co-delinquent, who
if awarded with a lessor punishment by the Disciplinary Authority or
even when the charges of the misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent postulate with more serious charges, the principle of equity
does warrant to be pressed into on the principle of absolute parity.
26. The second limb of argument of learned advocate for the petitioner
is of bias approach on the part of the respondent authorities in case of the
petitioner, which can be discerned from the fact that despite the petitioner
having ventilated his grievance to the concerned authority while citing
number of counts of the Inquiry Officer being bias with the petitioner on
account of he having been called to remain present in person in regard to
the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner and the Inquiry
Officer was made to sit before the CAT and thus, the petitioner on getting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
sense, represented that he might not get the justice as the Inquiry Officer
was keeping grudge against the petitioner for such an incident, the
petitioner requested for appointment of neutral and independent Inquiry
Officer and sought recusal services of the then Inquiry Officer. However,
the said request was turned down and ultimately the impugned order
came to be passed against the petitioner, despite the fact of the co-
delinquents met with their respective fate on the basis of the outcome of
the proceedings initiated against them, on similar set of facts. Thus, in
nutshell, as appears from the record and proceedings, the issue as to
arbitrariness and selective action singled out the petitioner for adverse
action and letting of the co-delinquents does speak volume, which is
nothing but a sheer act of discrimination rather depriving the petitioner
from his legitimate benefits ignoring the principle of parity. [See : E.S.
Reddi vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P. & Anr., (1987) 3 S.C.C. 258.]
27. The reliance placed by learned Advocate for respondents upon the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra) where the
Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of standard of proof as can be said
to be not beyond reasonable doubt, but solely rests on the preponderance
of probabilities and as such there cannot be any straitjacket formula.
There can be no denial to the said proposition of law; but considering the
peculiar facts of the case, it would not come to the rescue of the case of
the respondents.
28. Another decision, which is pressed into service by the learned
Advocate for respondents is in the case of Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank &
Ors. (supra), where the Supreme Court has held that while exercising
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
jurisdiction under Article 226 the Constitution, the High Court does not
act as an appellate authority as the jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits
of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. It further
held that the judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on
merits as an Appellate Authority. There can be no denial to the said
proposition of law; but considering the facts of the case on hand where
the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, suffer
from grave perversity and illegality, the judicial review by the Court does
warrant and, therefore, the said decision would also not apply to the facts
of the present case.
29. Likewise, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs. P.K. Sharma (supra) where the Supreme Court has held that
there is no bar in initiating disciplinary proceedings if the charged officer
is acquitted of criminal proceedings arising out of the same cause of
action and the result of one proceeding does not have a bearing on the
other proceedings. There can be no dispute to such proposition of law;
but in the case on hand, the facts are totally rest on different material
where the co-delinquents have been exonerated on one or the other count
and the petitioner seeks applicability of principle of absolute parity.
30. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the
CAT lacks plausible reasons for not accepting the stance of the petitioner
as to why the petitioner was deprived of for not extending the similar
benefits as has been given in case of the co-delinquents, who have been
facing similar charges on same set of facts as no specific reasons are even
adduced by the appellate authority either for discarding the same and why
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6494/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
not adhered in the case of the petitioner. Thus, the findings arrived by the
authority as well as the CAT deserve to be quashed and set aside.
31. For the foregoing reasons, the petition merit acceptance. The order
dated 13.03.2009 passed by the CAT in Original Application No.256 of
2007 and the original order of penalty dated 24.10.2006 passed by
respondent No.3, which was substituted by the order dated 03.04.2007,
passed by respondent No.4 to the extent of reducing the penalty from
dismissal to compulsory retirement, are quashed and set aside and the
petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits, including promotion
at par with his juniors. The benefits shall be conferred to the petitioner
within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of the receipt of the
writ of this order.
32. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed. RULE is made
absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 01
