Gujarat High Court

Devang A Sata Police Wireless Sub ... vs State Of Gujarat Thro Principal ... on 19 November, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/17588/2011                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17588 of 2011


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT                                     Sd/-

                       ==================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                             ✓
                       ==================================================
                                   DEVANG A SATA POLICE WIRELESS SUB INSPECTOR
                                                      Versus
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT THRO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
                       ==================================================
                       Appearance:
                       SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM(9051) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MS. FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
                       the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       ==================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                           Date : 19/11/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 12, 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the departmental proceedings initiated vide charg-sheet dated 18.7.2007 are vitiated on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

account of the same being in violation of principles of natural justice;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2011 passed by Res. No.2 and order dtd.

27.06.2011 passed by the res. No. 1, as a result of the disciplinary proceedings being declared as being vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent- authorities to to restore to the petitioner the difference of amount between which the petitioner was entitled to and the petitioner had been actually paid as a result of the order of punishment order dated 01.08.2011 passed by Res. No. 2 and order dtd. 27.06.2011 passed by the res. No. 1 being quashed and set aside by this Honourable Court;

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"

3. At the outset, Mr. Goutam, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that despite petitioner raised several grounds in the appeal presented before respondent No.1, vide its impugned order dated 27.06.2011, only 8 points have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority against which 16 grounds raised in the appeal.

3.1. Mr. Goutam, would further submit that as such, inquiry undertaken by respondent - Authority against the petitioner vitiated by principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, since inception of inquiry, requisite documents, though demanded, not supplied. It is further submitted that no presenting Officer was also appointed which is a mandatory requirement under the law but entire inquiry has been conducted by inquiry Officer, as if like a prosecutor acting on behalf of the Department.

3.2. Mr. Goutam would further submit that charge levelled

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

against the petitioner was base-less and not proved in inquiry, inasmuch as, inquiry is not conducted in a fair manner. It is submitted that the charge-sheet was issued by the Superintendent of Police, instead of Superintendent of Police (Wireless), which is contrary to Rules.

3.3. Making the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Goutam would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned Asst. Government Pleader would submit that all allegations levelled against the Inquiry Officer also happens to be presenting Officer, are base-less as nothing has been brought on record to substantiate such allegations. It is submitted that petitioner was quite aware from the beginning that inquiry Officer has to act as presenting Officer and in that view of the matter, brief was not provided and at the relevant point of time, without making any grievance, petitioner participated in the inquiry.

4.1. Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would further submit that inquiry Officer has submitted his report having found charge is proved against the petitioner and after observing principles of natural justice, respondent - Authority has inflicted punishment.

4.2. Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would further submit that at the relevant point of time, there was no post of Superintendent of Police (Wireless) and as such, there is no illegality committed by the Superintendent of Police while issuing charge-sheet

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

against the petitioner.

4.3. Nonetheless, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would unable to lay her hand, so far as non-dealing of certain grounds which are pressed into service by petitioner while filing his appeal before the Appellate Authority.

4.4. Making the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would request this Court to reject the present writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the matter, prima facie, it appears that while filing an appeal before respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority, petitioner has set out in all 16 grounds, whereas Appellate Authority has discussed only 8 such points while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 27.06.2011.

6. This Court, after going through the memo of appeal and so also reasons set out by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order, can easily notice that certain vital grounds, which are agitated by the petitioner in support of his case, remain undecided / untouched by the Appellate Authority, thereby, impugned order requires to be interfered by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. At the same time, when this Court is not deciding the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

larger issues which are raised in this matter, inasmuch as, not entering into the merits of the matter but interfering with impugned order only on the count that Appellate Authority has not dealt with all grounds pressed into service by the petitioner, it is desirable that matter requires to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh appeal filed by the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid observations, discussion and so also the reasons, the impugned order 27.06.2011 passed by Under Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat (Annexure-G) is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 to rehear and decide afresh appeal of petitioner by giving him an opportunity of hearing.

9. It is open for the petitioner to submit additional grounds, if any with supporting documents which are part of the inquiry in question.

10. The Appellate - Authority, i.e. respondent No.1 is hereby directed to decide an appeal after considering all grounds which will be raised / pressed into service by the petitioner during the course of his submission or otherwise, without being influenced by order dated 27.06.2011, and pass detailed / reasoned order in the matter. Let respondent No.1 complete hearing and decide afresh the appeal of the petitioner on or before 28 th February, 2026.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17588/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/11/2025

undefined

11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. No costs. Direct service is permitted.