Gujarat High Court
Arvind Chhotalal Rathod vs State Of Gujarat Through Principal ... on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16333 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ARVIND CHHOTALAL RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.D H PANCHAL(6420) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DR. POOJA ASHAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the
respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on
behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the
parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Be pleased certiorari to issue writ of other any writ of
or nature or any appropriate order or directions declaring
by the proceeding of departmental inquiry initiated vide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
first show-cause notice 20-11-2004 to be void ab intio on
account of preconceived notion, malafides and unsustainable
for the want of any legal evidence and consequently be
pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 13-1-2010
passed by the respondent no-1 which is at Annexure P
(B) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, be
pleased to stay execution operation, the and implementation
of order dated 13-01-2010 [Ann. passed P] by the
respondent-1, till the final hearing of this petition
(C) Be pleased to grant any other prayers may be deemed
fit in view of peculiar facts of the present case in the
interest of justice"
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as
under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that
petitioner seeks to challenge the order Disciplinary authority's
dated 13.01.2008 holding petitioner guilty of charge No.1 and
imposing of one punishment of stoppage of increment with
permanent effect as the same a result of defective decision
making process and is a result of error apparent on record
as the initiation of the proceeding itself is manifestly
attended with the ulterior motive to harass the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the
petitioner while working as Taluka Mamlatdar of Bayad
taluka District Sabarakanth, an F.I.R was registered against
the petitioner under Sections 7, 12, and 13 of Prevention of
Corruption act 1988 in Himatnagar A.C B Police station of
Sabarkantha District. It is further the case of the petitioner
in this petition that investigating officer recorded statement
of complainant under CRPC in regard to FIR of Cr. No. 6 of
1998. On the same day the Investing officer recorded another
statement of complainant wherein complainant made further
allegation that during festival of last Divali union leader Shri
Dipak Shah had demanded Rs 900/- as contribution to Divali
Bonus to be given to the petitioner and the complainant,
therefore, had given Rs 900/- and Dipak Shah had given
Rs.30000/, collected from shopkeeper, to the petitioner during
last Divali. The investigating officer submitted affidavit in
this regards before Sp.Court Himatnagar.
3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that charge-sheet in respect to FIR-6/1998 was filed by ACB
Himatnagar in Sp court Himanagar. But ACB Himatnagar
neither included the offence of bribe of Rs.30000/- alleged to
have occurred during Divali festival nor the name of Dipak
Shah was shown as witness in the charg-sheet. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the case of the petitioner in this petition that after six and
half year, disciplinary authority issued first show-cause notice
to the petitioner for accepting bribe of Rs 30000/- from Shri
Dipak Shah during Divali festival. The petitioner replied to
first show cause notice. The the disciplinary authority started
inquiry against the petitioner. After completion of inquiry, the
inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary
authorities on 30.12.2006. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that the trial of criminal case
against petitioner was concluded and the petitioner was
acquitted. After obtaining acquittal order, petitioner submitted
application on 07-1-2008 for regularization of his suspension
period. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that the petitioner submitted application on 9-1-2008 for
promotion. When petitioner did not receive any reply with
regard applications, he submitted application under Right to
Information Act. It is further the case of the petitioner in
this petition that second show-cause notice came to be issued
by the disciplinary authority and reply was submitted by the
petitioner. The the disciplinary authority issued Final Order
of punishment of stoppage of one increment. Hence, the
present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. D.H. Panchal, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Though served, none
appears for the respondent No. 2.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5.1 Mr. D.H. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner at the relevant point of
time was serving at Mamlatdar at Bayad Taluka,
Sabarkantha. He was trapped by ACB. Thereafter, in the
sessions case, he has been acquitted after full-fledged trial
and thereafter, against that order, acquittal appeal has been
preferred by the State, which is pending. He has drawn the
attention of this Court towards the relevant papers, more
particularly, the inquiry report and has submitted that there
are two charges framed against the petitioner in the inquiry,
whereby inquiry officer has not believed charge No.2,
however, the inquiry officer has belief charge No.1 on the
basis that though there is no conclusive proof against the
petitioner, the inquiry officer has wrongly relied on this
aspect and, therefore, he has submitted that the inquiry
officer has committed gross error that on the one hand, the
inquiry officer, in the entire report has believed that there is
no believable material against the petitioner and on the other
hand, the inquiry officer has believed charge No.1 proved
partly and on that basis, the punishment is imposed by
withholding one increment with future effect and, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
he has submitted that this punishment is highly unwarranted
as such no charge is proved against the petitioner and,
therefore, the prayers prayed in the present petition is
required to be granted by interfering with the findings of the
departmental proceeding as well as action of the respondent-
authority. Therefore, interference is required to be called for
by this Court by granting prayers prayed in the present
petition.
5.2 He has further submitted that when the petitioner is
also acquitted in the criminal case, merely pendency of
acquittal appeal is not good ground for not considering the
case of the petitioner for the removal of such punishment
imposed on the basis of charges levelled in the criminal case
more particularly ACB case. He has further submitted that
there is no application of mind on the part of the respondent
No.1 as from the impugned order dated 13.01.2010, different
findings at two different places has been recorded in a
contradictory manner by stating in first reference that such
event is stated to be recorded in the year 1998; while in
second reference, it is stated that it is recorded in the 1997
and, therefore, he has submitted that such order is not
tenable in the eyes of law and is required to be interfered
with.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
5.3 He has further submitted that entire proceeding has
been initiated in furtherance of so-called preliminary inquiry
conducted by respondent No.2 without examination of veracity
of version put forward in the shape of statements of
shopkeepers. He has submitted that the petitioner being a
strict officer working as Mamlatdar has taken the strictest
possible action against the erring fair price shopkeepers, who
are indulging in some wrongful activities and, therefore, the
petitioner was falsely implicated in the same. He has further
submitted that there is no independent eyewitness except
the so-called shopkeepers, who are having grudge against the
petitioner. Therefore, though in the impugned order, all these
aspects are considered, thereafter also the inquiry officer has
believed in holding that charge No.1 is proved partly and,
therefore, imposition of penalty by way of one increment with
future effect. Therefore, he has submitted that the present
petition is required to be allowed on these grounds as
punishment is also not at all warranted and also,
disproportionate in absence of any specific finding regarding
proof of the allegation made by way of charge. Hence, he has
prayed to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-
6.1 Per contra, Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
submitted that penalty, which is imposed is withholding one
increment for one year with future effect. It cannot be
considered as major punishment imposed by the authority.
Therefore there is no question of considering any
proportionality. She has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the list of witnesses, which are given and who were
examined before the authority. She has submitted that the
contention that there is no independent witness is incorrect
and by referring to the list which is annexed at page 196 to
198 of the present petition, she has drawn the attention of
this Court that these many witnesses were examined during
the departmental proceeding and the sufficient opportunity is
given to the petitioner to defend his case.
6.2 She has further submitted that it is now well settled
law that interference of the Court by interfering by way of
judicial review in the departmental action more particularly
the imposition of punishment by the authority which is
imposed after following the procedure prescribed under the
rules, such scope is very limited; either it is shockingly
disproportionate or without following principles of natural
justice. In the present case, the petitioner has been given
sufficient opportunity to defend his case and all the
prescribed procedure have been followed. After appreciating
everything, the authority has not believed charge No.2 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
charge No.1 is also partly believed and, therefore, penalty by
way of punishment withholding one year increment with
future effect is very minor penalty and, therefore, no
interference is required to be called for.
6.3 She has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran
reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55944, more particularly,
paragraphs 13 and 14 are relevant and has submitted that
the scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters
and merely because some different view is possible as per
the say of the petitioner, the Court should not interfere with
the same; unless any necessary requirement to interfere with
such decision by way of judicial review is established and,
therefore, she has prayed to dismiss this petition.
ANALYSIS:-
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. I have also perused the impugned order dated
13.01.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority, which is
under challenge in the present petition. I have also perused
the prayer Clause. It transpires that the petitioner was
serving as Mamlatdar at Bayad Taluka, Dist. Surendranagar.
Considering the allegation that the petitioner has asked for
some Diwali gift; Rs.30,000/- has been demanded. There are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
witnesses, who have given the specific version that the
petitioner has demanded this amount and raid is carried out
at the quarter of the petitioner and at that point of time,
some amount is recovered at the quarter of the petitioner.
Though the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner on the
ground that the prosecution has failed to establish all three
ingredients, which are required to be satisfied in ACB case,
but the fact remains that this incident has occurred at the
place whereby the trap was arranged and some necessary
material is also found to indicate that there is some truth in
the allegation against the petitioner.
7.2 Moreover considering the finding of the authority, the
authority after appreciating everything has not believed
charge No.2 and charge No.1 is also believed in part and not
believed in totality. Accordingly, after considering the aspect,
the authority has awarded punishment of withholding one
increment with future effect which is in consonance with the
provisions of law and in the facts of the present case and
also justified in the facts of the present case. It cannot be
considered as disproportionate as at the best, it can be
considered as minor punishment.
7.3 It is fruitful to refer to the judgment relied by learned
advocate for the respondent in the case of Union of India vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
P. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 (0) AIJEL-SC 55944, more
particularly, paragraphs 13 and 16 are relevant, as under:
13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that
behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice
in conducting
the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the
evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced
by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
14. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.
15. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra
Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao[1], many of the
above principles have been discussed and it has been
concluded thus:
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a
court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public
servant: it is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in that
behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in
that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice
are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which
the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence may
reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function
of the High Court in a petition for a writ under
Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at
an independent finding on the evidence. The High
Court may undoubtedly interfere where the
departmental authorities have held the proceedings
against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or
where the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case
or by allowing themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on
the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But
the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is
otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
if there be some legal evidence on which their
findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted
to be canvassed before the High Court in a
proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution."
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra
Venkata Rao[2], the principles have been further discussed
at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with
departmental inquiries has come up before this Court.
Two propositions were laid down by this Court in
State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no
warrant for the view that in considering whether a
public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against
him, the rule followed in criminal trials that[pic]an
offence is not established unless proved by evidence
beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the
Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by
a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not
competent to declare the order of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High
Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over
the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant. The Court is
concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held
by an authority competent in that behalf and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
and whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated. Second, where there is some evidence which
the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence may
reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function
of the High Court to review the evidence and to
arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may interfere where the
departmental authorities have held the proceedings
against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or
where the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case
or by allowing themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on
the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at that conclusion. The departmental
authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly
held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some
legal evidence on which their findings can be based,
the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a
matter which can be permitted to be canvassed
before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ
under Article 226.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing
the Union of India, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh
said that the High Court does not interfere with the
conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the
finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be
said that no reasonable person could have reached
such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court
held that the High Court exceeded its powers in
interfering with the findings of the disciplinary
authority on the charge that the respondent was
instrumental in compelling the shut-down of an air
compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This
Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the
evidence of two persons that the respondent led a
group of strikers and compelled them to close down
their compressor could not be accepted at its face
value. The General Manager did not agree with the
Enquiry Committee on that point. The General
Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that
it was open to the General Manager to do so and he
was not bound by the conclusion reached by the
committee. This Court held that the conclusion
reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail
and the High Court should not have interfered with
the conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The
Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The
findings of fact reached by an inferior court or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence
are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.
An error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In
regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a
writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording
the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused
to admit admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has
influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of
fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded
as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ
of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the
Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the
relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led
on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn
from the said finding are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan.
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the
entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The
High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from
the aspect that the High Court does not correct a
finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not
sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present
case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion
that there is no evidence which would justify the
finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not
make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its
conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to
say that no reasonable person could have arrived at
these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the
evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected
the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what
the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a
writ of certiorari should not do."
CONCLUSION:
7.4 Considering the above settled position of law, which is
also reiterated in many judgments and considering the fact
that the scope of judicial review is very limited, I find no
reason to interfere with the findings of the authority and
considering the prayers in the present petition, no relief can
be granted in view of the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case. The order passed by the authority
is after discussing everything at length, after giving cogent
reasons and after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner
as well as after perusing the materials available on the
record in appropriate manner. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the said order is arbitrary, unjust or capricious in any
manner neither it can be said that it is violated of Article
14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no reasons,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16333/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
to interfere by exercising my power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. In view
of the above, the present petition is required to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed, accordingly with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
