Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7213 of 2015
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7351 of 2015
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GUJARAT CIVIL SERVICES TRIBUNAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1-STATE
MR. MAYANK K TRIVEDI(7906) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petitions are filed by the respective
petitioners for seeking the following reliefs:
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition.
[B] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ/order or direction to quash and set aside
the order impugned dated 03/11/2014 in Appeal No.
153/2010 with Appeal No. 187/2012 annexed at
ANNEXURE A thereby declaring it to be illegal and non
est in the eyes of law.
[C] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to call for the
record and proceedings pertaining to the Appeal Nos.
153/2010 and 187/2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
[D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to stay the
operation, implementation and execution of the order
impugned dated 03/11/2014 in Appeal No. 153/2010 with
Appeal No. 187/2012 annexed at ANNEXURE A.
[E] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to grant exparte ad
interim relief in terms of para (9) [D].
[F] YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to pass such other
and further relief in favour of the petitioners, as deemed
just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
2. Since the petitioners in both the petitions as well as
impugned judgment of both the captioned petitions are
common, hence, at the request of learned advocates for
the respective parties, the matters are heard together
and decided together and Special Civil Application No.
7213 of 2015 is considered as lead matter.
3. Heard Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the petitioner-State and Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned
advocate for the respondent No.2.
4. Mr. Henil Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the petitioner-State has drawn my attention towards the
charge-sheet, finding of the authority in the departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
posting and also finding given by the appellate authority in
appeal and has submitted that in appeal, the authority has
committed gross error in clubbing both the appeals and
deciding the same by way of single judgment. He has also
submitted that the appellate authority has committed gross
error in law by interfering with the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority by way of compulsory retirement
and replacing the punishment with reduction of three
increments in pay scale. He has submitted that looking to
the allegation against the present petitioner, the authorities
have, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties
and after following necessary procedure has reached to the
conclusion that the present respondent is liable for the
punishment of compulsory retirement and, there is no reason
to interfere with such punishment looking to the grave
misconduct of the present respondent. He has further
submitted that appellate authority has also erred into
entering into the merits by considering the minute details,
which is against the settled position of law as the appellate
authority is not required to enter into the merits of the
matter and only to examine the proprietary and validity of
the procedure, which is followed by the inquiry officer as well
as disciplinary authority. He has further submitted that even
punishment, which is replaced by way of reduction of three
increment in pay scale is also without proper application of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
mind as the petitioner had already superannuated when the
impugned order was passed by the appellate authority and,
therefore, such change of the relief also becomes ineffective.
He has also contended that order of non-grant of
compassionate pension to the present respondent is also not
carried further by the present respondent; on this count also,
the present petition is required to be succeeded.
5. Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 has strongly opposed the same and, by drawing my
attention towards the charges and finding of the inquiry
officer as well as discipline authority and also finding of the
appellate authority as well as averments made in the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, he has submitted
that as such, both the appeals are decided by the appellate
authority which is by way of impugned order and the
petitioner has already superannuated. He has further
submitted that considering the charge; out of three charges,
only one charge is found proved by the authority and the
same pertains to the negligence in discharging the
supervisory duty and, therefore, considering the nature of the
allegation, the appellate authority has rightly come to the
conclusion that the punishment, which is imposed, which is
by way of compulsory retirement is highly disproportionate
and required to be replaced by stoppage of three increments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
He has also submitted that considering the length of service
of the respondent, the appellate authority has considered all
the relevant aspects and reached to the conclusion that
looking to the charge, which are proved against the
respondent, the punishment is very harsh and
disproportionate and, therefore, rightly replaced with the
stoppage of three increments. He has further submitted that
as such, now consideration of the petition has also become
academic; by assuming everything against the present
respondent, then also, granting of prayers of present petition
will not serve any purpose and, therefore, by efflux of time,
the present petition has become infructuous and, therefore, he
prays to dismiss both the petitions accordingly.
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. I have also considered the fact that the petitioner has
rendered 32 years of service. I have also considered the fact
that there are three charges, out of them, two charges are
not believed by the inquiry officer as proved; and the third
charge is considered as proved which pertains to negligence
in discharging the duty as supervisory authority. Even
thereafter, the disciplinary authority deems it fit to award
the punishment of compulsory retirement, against which,
present appeals were preferred by the present respondent
before the Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
considering all the pros and cons come to the conclusion that
the punishment is disproportionate as only one charge is
proved which also pertains to the negligence in the duty by
the respondent which he has to do as supervisory capacity
and, therefore, this Court is also of the opinion that such
harsh punishment looking to the charge which is proved
against the present petitioner is certainly considered as
disproportionate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, as this Court is examining this
petition by exercising powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as essentially the petitioner is
challenging the order of the Service Tribunal. The scope
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as
under:
"Article 227 of the Constitution of India:-
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High
Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation
to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provisions, the High Court may--
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for
regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts
shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be
allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such
courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising
therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables
settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be
inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time
being in force, and shall require the previous approval of
the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a
High Court powers of superintendence over any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, repealed Article 19 (1) (f) and also
took out Article 31(1) has been taken out of Part III and
made a separate Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII.
This amendment may have taken away the scope of speedy
remedy under Article 32 for the violation of Right to
Property because it is no more a Fundamental Right.
Making it a legal right under the Constitution serves two
purposes: Firstly, it gives emphasis to the value of
socialism included in the preamble and secondly, in doing
so, it conformed to the doctrine of basic structure of the
Constitution. Also Refer]"
6.2 It is now well settled position of law that the Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7213/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
while exercising power under Article 227 cannot replace or
substitute the findings given by appellate authority and the
Court can only consider the legality and propriety of such
findings. I found no reason to interfere with the findings
given by the authority. Moreover, by efflux of time,
consideration of this petition has also as such become
academic, but with a view to give some justifiable reasons,
the Court has discussed the matter as discussed above,
however, this Court is of the opinion that by efflux of time,
prayers prayed in the present petition have also become
infructuous. Accordingly, the present petitions are required to
be dismissed on that count also and hence, the present
petitions are hereby dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
