Gujarat High Court
P P Rathod vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 23 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 750 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24856 of 2007
==========================================================
P P RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VACHA J NANAVATI(6588) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MR RC JANI(357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard Ms. Mili Baxi, the learned advocate holding brief of
Ms. Vacha Nanavati, the learned counsel for the appellants,
and perused the record.
2. The appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of
the deceased petitioner, who had died on 25.04.2024 after
delivery of the impugned judgment and order dated
12.03.2024 by the learned single Judge. The challenge before
the Writ Court was to the decision of the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority dated 14.09.2004 and 07.03.2005;
respectively, which were passed as a result of the disciplinary
inquiry conducted against the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
3. We may note, at the out set, that there is no challenge to
the inquiry report dated 30.05.2000 submitted in a joint
departmental inquiry held against eight officers of the
department. There is no allegation of mala fides against the
officer, who conducted the departmental inquiry or against the
Disciplinary Authority. The only ground taken to challenge the
decision of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ
petition challenging the punishment awarded to the petitioner
by the Disciplinary Authority, is that there were two other
officers posted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the
respondent Board against whom charges were levelled of
misappropriation and they have been found guilty. However,
those two persons namely Mr. R.B.Makwana and Mr. K.K.Patel,
who were also posted as Deputy Executive Engineer and
against whom the joint inquiry report dated 30.05.2000 was
submitted, have been awarded minor penalty, whereas the
petitioner has been singled out to impose a major penalty.
4. The attention of the Court is invited to paragraph No.'17'
of the writ petition to substantiate the above. It stated therein
that the petitioner has taken this ground in the departmental
appeal and the averment made in the memo of the appeal has
been placed before us to submit that specific ground taken by
the petitioner before the Appellate Authority has not been
taken into consideration. The statement in paragraph No. '17'
is to the effect that the petitioner is not aware of the charges
against the co-delinquent, nor the findings against them is
known to him, but the fact remains that since a joint inquiry
was held, the charges must be the same or similar. The
contention is that the entire inquiry report should have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
supplied to the petitioner so that the petitioner would know
that as to how far he and his co-delinquents have been held
guilty. The denial to supply the entire inquiry report is against
the principles of natural justice and hence the order of the
imposition of penalty is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. With these assertions, what is sought to be argued before
us is that the learned single Judge has failed to consider this
specific stand of the petitioner to challenge the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority based on the inquiry report submitted
against three persons, in a joint inquiry conducted by the
inquiry officer.
6. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Anil
Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Director General, SSB and
Others (2022 SCC OnLine 478), the attention of the Court is
invited to the quoted paragraph No. '19.5' of the judgment in
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh Gramin Bank) vs. Rajendra Singh [(2013) 12
SCC 372] noted therein, while considering the grounds of
challenge to the decision of the Disciplinary Authority on the
claim of parity.
7. Placing reliance on the quoted paragraph No. '19.5'
which is quoted at page No. '21' of the judgment impugned of
the learned single Judge, it is sought to be submitted that an
exception has been carved out by the Apex Court therein, in a
case of challenge to the proportionality of the punishment as
to the nature of charges framed and proved against the
delinquent employees. The submission is that in cases where
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the
disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct
were identical or co-delinquent was foisted with more serious
charges, the challenge can be sustained as an exception to the
limited power to judicial review to interfere with the quantum
of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, in cases
where the penalty is found to shocking the conscience of the
Court. It was argued that this exception is carved out on the
doctrine of equality, when it is found that the employee
concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed, inasmuch
as, lesser punishment awarded to the co-delinquent where the
charges of misconduct were proved, would be unjustified.
8. Taking note of the above submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, suffice it to record that
there is no foundation laid in the writ petition to apply the said
principle, inasmuch as, there is no disclosure about the nature
of charges against the petitioner and other two delinquent
persons namely Mr. R.B.Makwana and Mr. K.K.Patel, who were
posted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the respondent Board.
Apart from the bald assertions made in paragraph No. '17' of
the writ petition, as noted hereinabove, nothing has been
disclosed in the writ petition about the charges or the
chargesheet issued against the co-delinquents. The assertion
made therein is that the petitioner is not aware of the charges
against those persons (co-delinquents) nor the findings against
them in the inquiry report. The only ground placed before this
Court to bring this case within the exception carved out by the
Apex Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) is
that the joint inquiry report has not been provided to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
petitioner with respect to the charges and the proving of guilt
against the co-delinquents. This vague assertion cannot be a
reason to initiate a roving inquiry by this Court more so when
there are no allegations of mala fides against the disciplinary
authority. There is also no challenge to the inquiry report. In
absence of any allegation of mala fides and non-disclosure of
the facts with regard to the nature of charges levelled against
the aforesaid other two persons, who according to the
petitioners were similarly placed, it would not be possible for
us to follow the proposition of the decision in Lucknow
Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) placed before us.
9. We may extract quoted paragraph No. '19.5' of
Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant for ready reference :
"19.5 The only exception to the principle stated in
para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-
delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the
disciplinary authority even when the charges of
misconduct were 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 employee
concerned and the co-delinquent 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 the co-delinquent accepts the
charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology,
lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/750/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
10. According to us, none of the circumstances as considered
by the Apex Court in paragraph No. '19.5' of Lucknow
Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) could be made out for
invoking the powers of the judicial review treating it as a case
wherein the punishment has been awarded disproportionately,
which may be found to be shocking to the conscience of the
Court.
11. Even otherwise on an independent consideration of the
charges proved against the petitioner, they are found to be
serious in nature. We do not find any error in the decision of
the learned single Judge in refusing to interfere on the ground
of proportionality of punishment.
12. For the above, no interference is called for. The appeal
stands dismissed, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
C.M. JOSHI
