Gujarat High Court

Hiralal Khushalbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2025

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/SCA/5681/2020                                          ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5681 of 2020

                        ==========================================================
                                                      HIRALAL KHUSHALBHAI PARMAR
                                                                 Versus
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR VD PARGHI(568) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                        MR HENIL SHAH, AGP the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                        ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 26/06/2025

                                                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:

"18(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29/05/2017 (Annexure-I) passed by the respondent no.1 and also quashed and set aside the order dated 14/10/2019 (Annexure-A) passed by the Ld.Member, Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar. (C) xxxx"

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are

such that the petitioner was appointed as Peon and posted at

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

office of the Senior Geologist, Mining Research Circle, Rajkot

on 8.1.1990; thereafter he was promoted by respondent no.1

on 3.7.2004 to the post of Junior Clerk (Class-III); on

22.10.2009, the respondent no.1 transferred the petitioner

from District Office, Rajkot to District Office, Navsari; on

13.4.2012, at 12.35 p.m., the ACB, Navsari raided the

District Office, Navsari and arrested the petitioner at 17.30

p.m. in connection to the FIR being C.R.No.3/2012 registered

before the ACB Police Station, Navsari punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(C) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act; vide letter dated 16.4.2012, on the basis of letter of

respondent no.3 written to respondent no.1, suspended the

petitioner; after completion of the inquiry, the police inquiry

has filed chargesheet dated 4.9.2012 against the petitioner

under Rule of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal)

Rules, 1997 and framed the charges against the petitioner

and also asked him to file defence within 30 days; thereafter,

on 27.5.2013, the petitioner made representation to the

Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Gandhinagar and

requested to consider his case and drop the departmental

inquiry; on receiving the report of the departmental inquiry,

on 29.5.2017, the respondent no.1 passed the order of

stopping of three increments with future effect under Section

6(2) of the Rules; against the said order, the petitioner

approached before the learned Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

Gandhinagar by way of Appeal No.71 of 2017, however, the

said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2019 and

the order dated 29.5.2017 was confirmed. Therefore, this

petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Parghi for the petitioner has

submitted that the impugned order of stopping of three

increments with future effect and the order passed by the

learned Tribunal are absolutely illegal and arbitrary; that he

has been falsely implicated in the offence; that no such

incident of give and take of bribe has occurred; even then he

has been framed in the case of ACB; that the petitioner has

unblemished career of more than 27 years; that though the

petitioner has given detailed representation dated 27.5.2013 to

the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Gandhinagar

stating all the facts, the same was not considered and only

the para-wise remarks of the respondent-authority was

considered and the order of punishment of stoppage of

increments was passed. Even the learned Tribunal has erred

in upholding the order of punishment passed by the

department. He submitted that when no such incident for

which the charge is framed has occurred, the question of

passing any order does not arise.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

3.2 He further submitted that even if the incident is

believed, the criminal proceedings and the departmental

proceedings cannot go together in hand. When the criminal

proceedings are initiated, departmental proceedings ought not

to have been initiated. He submitted that though all the

points are taken before the disciplinary authority and the

appellate authority, the same is not considered by the

authorities and the impugned orders are illegal and therefore

required to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore,

submitted to allow this petition and grant all the benefits as

prayed for.

4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Shah has submitted that there is no illegality committed by the respondent

authority in passing the impugned order and the appellate

authority in confirming the same. The raid was carried out,

the petitioner was caught red-handed taking the bribe and

therefore the charge was framed. On the departmental

inquiry being concluded, the charge was proved and the

punishment was imposed of stoppage of three increments

which cannot be said to be not in proportion to the offence

committed by the petitioner. Learned AGP has further

submitted that the scope of interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

limited and unless there is illegality, perversity or malafides

in the said proceedings, this Court may not interfere with

the same. He therefore prays to dismiss the petition.

4.1 In support of his submissions, he relied on the

following decisions :

1. The Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. V/s Ajit Kumar Singh

and Ors. reported in 2023(8) Scale 785.

2. Union of India V/s M.Duraisamy reported in 2022(7) SCC

5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and

perused the material on record.

5.1 It is required to be noted that as regards the

incident, the respondents authorities have proved the same by

leading evidence, oral as well as documentary, which is

evident from the report of the disciplinary authority and the

impugned order of ordering punishment.

5.2 As regards the submission that criminal

proceedings and departmental proceedings cannot go together,

the learned Tribunal has observed in paragraph 8 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

order, by referring to the settled principle of law and the

various circulars of the government, that it is not that the

departmental and criminal proceedings cannot go together.

The learned Tribunal has further discussed the circular dated

25.3.2008 and observed that it is a circular issuing guidelines

and in the present case, as there were no lapses with regard

to the time limit or any other lapse, there is no need to

place the papers before the Vigilance Commission, as stated

by the petitioner. Further, it transpires from the record that

all the rules of the Discipline and Appeal Rules are being

followed. The petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity

to defend his case at every stage and the disciplinary

authority has considered all the evidence led before it and

the defence led by the petitioner and also gave a final notice

and as there was nothing special coming out in the reply to

the said notice given by the petitioner, the disciplinary

authority was right in imposing the punishment, as the

charge against the petitioner was proved.

5.3 In the above background, it will be fruitful to

refer to the judgments relied on by learned AGP.

5.4 In the case of M.Duraisamy (supra), it is observed

in paragraph 9 as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

"9. Merely because the respondent-employee had worked for 39 years and in those years, there was no punishment imposed and/or that he voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount along with penal interest and therefore there was no loss to the Government/Department cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substitute the same from removal to that of compulsory retirement. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court have, in fact, considered the nature and gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent officer. Therefore, both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had exceeded in their jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority."

5.5 In the case of Ajit Kumar Singh & Ors., (supra),

it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 6 as

under:

"6. The facts of the case leading to the issuance of chargesheet, initiation of departmental inquiry, the report of the inquiry officer and the punishment inflicted upon respondent no.1 have already been narrated in the preceding paragraphs. It is not in dispute that during the course of inquiry, fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1 at every stage. This was even found by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

challenging the punishment inflicted upon him. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court shows that matter was dealt with in a manner as if it was the first stage of the case, namely, the inquiry was being conducted and inquiry report was being prepared, which is not the scope in judicial review. The views expressed by this Court on the scope of judicial review in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, are extracted below:

"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The 1 (2021) 2 SCC 612 court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.

If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

25-27 xx xx xx

28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained." (emphasis supplied)

Similar view was expressed in the later judgment of this Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India and Ors."

5.6 Considering the above decisions, this Court would

not interfere with the findings of facts arrived at in the

departmental inquiry proceedings as there is no malafide or

perversity found in the same. The punishment imposed of

stoppage of three increments with future effect is one of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/5681/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025

undefined

minor penalties prescribed and looking to the gravity of

misconduct of accepting bribe by a public servant, which is

proved against the petitioner, the punishment imposed cannot

be said to be disproportionate and is not required to be