Gujarat High Court
Devdutt Narayanbhai Panpatil vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9041 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVDUTT NARAYANBHAI PANPATIL
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SMIT P VAGHELA(10653) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. AKASH GUPTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned
advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the Petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Gupta for the
Respondent - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The Petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on
21.11.1983 at District - Valsad. As per the service record, the
date of the retirement of the Petitioner was 31.08.2020 and the
Petitioner was not with the Respondents for about 30 years. At
the relevant point of time, the Petitioner was serving as Assistant
Police Constable at Navsari Town Police Station.
2.2 An FIR being C.R.No. 70 of 2006 before Navsari Town Police
Station was registered against the Petitioner along with other co-
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 193,
196, 199, 200, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (2) of the Passport
Act, 1967. As per the FIR, the Petitioner, while serving as Police
Constable, Navsari Town Police Station with respect of the
passport inquiry of one accused namely, Femida W/o. Bilal
Gulam Shaikh had failed to make proper inquiry with respect to
the birth place and thereby helped the accused person in getting
the forged passport and therefore, allegation against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
Petitioner was made with respect to negligence and improper
inquiry in performance of his duties.
2.3 After completion of investigation, criminal case being Criminal
Case No. 5974 of 2006 was registered and the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Navsari vide order dated 21.07.2018
convicted all the accused persons.
2.4 The Petitioner filed a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal
No. 39 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Court whereby
learned Sessions Judge, Navsari vide order dated 27.07.2018
suspended the order of conviction dated 21.07.2018 and released
the Petitioner on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
2.5 In view of the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial
Court, the Respondent no. 3 issued a show cause notice dated
24.08.2018 as to why the Petitioner should not be dismissed
from service for the said conviction imposed by the Trial Court.
Pursuant to the show cause notice, the Petitioner filed a detailed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
reply stating that he has preferred Appeal before the learned
Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court has released him
on bail and therefore, the said show cause notice may be
withdrawn and / or continued in services with all the
consequential benefits.
2.6 The Respondent no. 3 without considering the reply filed by the
Petitioner, vide order dated 01.11.2018, dismissed the Petitioner
from services. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of
dismissal. The said appeal was dismissed and order was
confirmed by the Inspector General of Police, Surat Division
vide order dated 13.05.2019.
2.7 It is the case of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the
present petition, the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and
order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2018 whereby the
judgment and order of conviction dated 21.07.2018 was quashed
and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
2.8 Thereafter, the Petitioner made representation dated 05.12.2023
to the Respondent authority in view of the acquittal of the
Petitioner in the criminal appeal. The representation was
rejected vide order dated 20.07.2024.
3. It will be seen that the culmination of the disciplinary inquiry
against the Petitioner resulted in the following major penalty
being awarded:-
"I, Premveer Singh, Superintendent of Police, Navsari,
do hereby pass the order to impose the penalty pursuant
to the charge referred at Preamble (1) against you i.e.
Devdutt Narayan Panpatil, B.No. 540, Service at:
Navsari Town Police Station, to place you in the
minimum basic pay of Rs.3200/- in the Pay Scale of
Rs.3200-85-4900 for six years and to count the period
of suspension of the delinquent from 25/08/2006 to
17/11/2007 as a suspension."
4. Due to the Petitioner's conviction in the criminal proceedings by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Petitioner was
removed from service. On appeal, the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Navsari by order dated 04.09.2023 acquitted the
Petitioner on the following terms:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
1) Criminal Appeal No.38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45 of 2018 are
hereby allowed.
2) Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2022 is hereby rejected.
3) The case against the Accused No.3 - Shabbir Ahmad
Amirmiya Shaikh, Accused No.8 - Dipakbhai Kesrinath
Pradhan and Accused No.14 - Dilipbhai Maganbhai
Parmar of the judgment passed vide Exhibit-525 in
Criminal Case No.5947/2006 by the Learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari hereby stands abated.
4) Quashing and setting aside the judgment passed vide
Exhibit-525 in Criminal Case No.5947/2006 by the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari; Appellant/
Accused No.1 - Femida W/o. Bilal Gulam Shaikh, Accused
No.2 - Bilal Gulam Shaikh, Accused No.4 - Pravinkumar
Kikubhai Koli Patel, Accused No.5 - Bhagubhai Dahyabhai
Mistry, Accused No.6 - Devdutt Narayan Panpatil, Accused
No.7 - Dipak Hiralal Mistry, Accused No.9 - Zakir Husen
@ Babu Mahammad Patel - Muslim, Accused No.10 -
Ikbal Abdulla Patel - Muslim, Accused No.11 -
Mohammad Tarik Aminuddin Kadri, Accused No.12 -
Mustak Gulam Malek, Accused No.13 - Imtiyaz Rasul
Malek and Accused No.15 - Rajendra Bhajanlal Swami are
hereby acquitted from the offences punishable under
Sections-181, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 465, 466, 468, 471,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section-12(a)(b) of the
Passport Act, 1967 and Section-14 of the Foreigners Act,
1946.
5) The amount of fine deposited by the appellants / accused
before the Subordinate Court, if any, be refunded after the
appeal period is over.
6) The Appellants/ Accused shall furnish bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- as per Section-437A of the Criminal Procedure
Code in order to ensure that they will remain present
before the Hon'ble High Court in case of appeal.
7) Copy of this judgment alongwith records and proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
of the said case be sent back forthwith to the Learned
Lower Court.
5. The Petitioner, consequent to his acquittal by the Sessions
Court, had preferred the representation dated 05.12.2023, which
came to be rejected by the order dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure -
G/ 3 to the petition).
6. Subsequently, by way of an amendment to the original petition
challenging the findings of the disciplinary inquiry, the
Petitioner inserted the following prayer:-
"8 (BB) Quash and set aside the order dated 20.07.2024
Annexure - G/3 to this petition"
7. The short question which arises for determination of this Court
in the aforesaid factual background is whether the Petitioner
would be entitled to be restored to the position, he was, prior to
the order of conviction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
consequent upon the reversal of the same by the Sessions Court
at Navsari.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
8. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Vyas,
learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that
once the clean acquittal has been granted by the Sessions Court
on the exact same facts on which the departmental inquiry has
been held, it should automatically culminate in the disciplinary
proceedings being set aside and the Petitioner ought to be
declared innocent even in respect of the departmental inquiry.
However, in the facts of the case, the Petitioner is confining his
challenge only to the restoration of the job and consequntial
benefits inasmuch as, the departmental authority had imposed a
major penalty other than dismissal from service and therefore,
the subsequent dismissal based on the criminal proceedings have
to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash
Gupta appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State submitted
that once the departmental proceedings have culminated in the
dismissal from service, this Court would be very cautious and
slow to interfere with such decision. Learned AGP Mr. Gupta
further submitted that the acquittal of the Petitioner is based
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
only on the technicalities and it is not a clean-cut acquittal which
can be said to be an honourable acquittal which would have any
effect on the departmental proceedings and the final findings of
the disciplinary authority. Even, in the facts of the case and the
grave allegations against the Petitioner, no relief ought to be
granted to the Petitioner and the petition needs to be dismissed.
9.1. Learned AGP, Mr. Gupta relied upon the recent decision of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.
25294 of 2007 in the case of Gulabsinh Devusinh Jhala V/s.
State of Gujarat and Others, wherein, this Court relying upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajsthan V/s. Bhupendrasing reported in AIR 2024 SC 4034,
had held as under:-
"14. In the opinion of this court, when the charges levelled
against the Petitioners are proved, the same resulting into
'misconduct' by a full fledged inquiry, the quantum of
punishment to be imposed in a particular case is
essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
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 unless found to be wholly arbitrary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
and misconceived. Undisputedly, the well grained
principle of law is that, the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature
of punishment to be imposed to a delinquent employee,
keeping in view of the seriousness of the misconduct of an
employee. The Court cannot assume and usurp the function
of the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid principle is
explained in AIR 1999 SC 625 (para-22). The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now
Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank) & Anr. v/s. Rajendra
Singh, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3540, harmoniously
summarized the principles laid down in Para-16, which
reads thus:
"16. This, according to us, would be the harmonious
reading of Obettee (P) Ltd. and Rajendra Yadav cases.
The principles discussed above can be summed up and
summarized as follows:
(a) 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;
b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
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.
(e) 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 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 co-delinquent accepts the charges,
indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser
punishment to him would be justifiable."
9.2. Learned AGP Mr. Gupta further relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal V/s. State of
Rajsthan and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1305/2023 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably
acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as
magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by
the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the
Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original
marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same
has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of
the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the
criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed
to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the
judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged
to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the
form of expression used.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in
the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the
appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even
stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by
this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after
considering the matters before it, the court either believes that
it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that
a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is
said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor
"disproved" [See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P.
(1990) 3 SCC 190].
10. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:-
I am of the opinion that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra) and of this Court
in the case of Gulabsinh (supra) are not applicable to the facts
of the present case for the following reasons:-
(A) in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority did not
recommend the dismissal of the Petitioner after
completion of the inquiry. Rather, the authority had
imposed another major penalty which the petitioner hs
already suffered/will suffer. The dismissal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
Petitioner was occasioned solely by the conviction of the
Petitioner, as pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
in the simultaneous criminal proceedings which were
undertaken against the Petitioner and other co-accused
therein. It is specific case of the Petitioner that since the
dismissal from service is based upon the conviction by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, then, the subsequent acquittal of
the Petitioner by the Sessions Court would neutralize the
said position, inasmuch as, the exact position and the
penalty imposed upon the Petitioner pursuant to the
disciplinary proceedings as confirmed by the disciplinary
authority by imposing a major penalty other than
dismissal, should be restored and the dismissal of the
Petitioner should be recalled. In the decisions relied upon
by the learned AGP Mr. Gupta, particularly, in the case of
Ram Lal (supra), the disciplinary authority itself had
dismissed the Petitioner from the service. Paragraph no. 5
of the decision in the case of Ram Lal (supra) is as under:-
"5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined
in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who
were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry
Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges
proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of
31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The
Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts
to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered
were also in vain."
In my opinion, this is the major distinguishing factor as to
why the decision of Ram Lal (supra) is inapplicable to
the Petitioner's case. It is not as if the Petitioner seeks that
the entire disciplinary proceedings should be washed-out
because of the subsequent acquittal on the exact same set
of facts arising out of the very same transaction. The
Petitioner's case is limited to neutralizing the dismissal
from the service which was based not on original order of
the disciplinary authority but consequent upon the
conviction in the criminal proceedings, as held by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(B) Similarly, the decision in the case of Gulabsinh (supra)
is on the point that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India will
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
not sit in appeal over the decision of the departmental
authorities because the quantum of the punishment to be
imposed is essentially in the domain of the departmental
authorities. In the present case, this Court is not
substituting the decision of the disciplinary authority
which is found in its order dated 24.07.2009 (at page no.
89 bottom of the paper book) but is merely interdicting
with the subsequent decision of the disciplinary authority
which was solely based upon the order of the conviction
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which now stands reversed
by the Sessions Court.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order
dated 20.07.2024 is to be set aside. Further orders of the
disciplinary authorities dated 01.11.2018, 13.05.2019 and
13.09.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. Since the
Petitioner would have superannuated on 31.08.2020, if he had
otherwise been in service, the Respondents are directed to grant
all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal upto the
date of superannuation / retirement i.e. 31.08.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9041/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
12. Therefore, this petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
