[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Fazal Mohammad Jusabji Khatri vs State Of Gujarat on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7753 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
FAZAL MOHAMMAD JUSABJI KHATRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent State and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for
respondent No.2.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and
quash and set aside the departmental inquiry initiated by
the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 30.4.2020;
(Annexure A to the petition)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
B. Pending, hearing and final disposal of this petition
Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further
proceedings of the departmental Inquiry initiated by the
respondent vide letter dated 30.4.2020 (Annexure A to the
petition).
C. Be pleased to pass any other order in the interest of
justice.
D. Be pleased to award cost of the petition from the
respondents."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner is praying for
quashing and setting aside the departmental inquiry initiated
against him by respondent No.2 on the day of his retirement,
i.e., 30/04/2020. The petitioner was serving as a Deputy
Executive Engineer and was posted at Dhrangadhra, District
Surendranagar and it is alleged by the respondent that
without taking prior permission, the petitioner left the
headquarters on 20/03/2020 and did not report for duty
despite repeated requests made by his superiors. The reason
for not reporting to the duty, cited by the petitioner, that due
to COVID-19 situation prevailing in the country, the lockdown
was issued by the Government.
3.1 The show-cause notice came to be issued against the
petitioner on 01/04/2020 and having not found the reply
satisfactory, respondent No.2 issued a charge-sheet on
30/04/2020. Thus, such inquiry proceeding is under
challenged before this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
4. Mr.Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner was suffering from gastritis
and viral infection and had to leave the headquarters on
20/03/2020 and went to his native at Surat, for medical
treatment. It is submitted that thereafter, due to the COVID-
19 situation, the Government declared a lockdown, whereby
the petitioner was unable to come back from his native to
Dhrangadhra and was, accordingly, absent from duty.
4.1 It is further submitted that without taking note of the
aforesaid aspects, just to harass the petitioner on the last day
of his retirement, he was served with the charge-sheet. It is
also submitted that considering the unprecedented COVID-19
situation, if the petitioner was unable to report to the duty, it
would not be a ground to initiate any departmental inquiry
against him.
4.2 Making the above submissions, Mr.Bharda, learned
advocate for the petitioner, would request this Court to allow
the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
5. Per contra, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for
respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed this petition and
relied upon the stand taken by the respondent No.2 in its
reply. Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate has also taken this
Court through the reply filed by respondent No.2. It is
submitted that the petitioner did not attend the office with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
effect from 20/03/2020 and left the headquarters without
prior permission or intimation to his superior i.e. District
Development Officer, Surendranagar.
5.1 It is further submitted that due to the heavy workload
due to March ending, Mr.K.S.Parghi, Executive Engineer
(Roads and Building), Surendranagar District Panchayat,
contacted the petitioner on his mobile on 23/03/2020 and
inquired about his whereabouts. The petitioner informed him
that he was at his native at village Randed, District Surat.
5.2 It is undisputed that till such time, the petitioner had
neither joined the service at Dhrangadhra nor submitted any
report for leave. It is also submitted that the Government
notification in relation to the national lockdown was issued
with effect from 25/03/2020 and if the petitioner desired to
report for duty, he being Class-II Gazetted Officer would have
joined the duty prior to the lockdown.
5.3 It is also submitted that as per the medical certificate, he
was under treatment between 23/03/2020 and 26/04/2020.
Thus, the lame defence of the petitioner that he was suffering
from serious medical illness on 20/03/2020 is unsustainable.
5.4 Ms.Vyas, learned AGP has adopted the arguments
canvassed by Mr.Munshaw for respondent No.2.
5.5 Making the above submissions, the learned advocates
for the respondents have urged this Court to dismiss the
present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
6. No other and further submissions have been advanced
by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of their pleadings, it is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner left his headquarters on
20/03/2020 without taking any prior approval/sanction. The
reason for leaving the headquarters cited by the petitioner is
medical illness of him, for which he has submitted a medical
certificate. Prima facie, the medical certificate made available
at page 31 of this petition would indicate that he was under
medical treatment from 23/03/2020 to 26/04/2020. So, there
is nothing on record to show that on 20/03/2020, the
petitioner was suffering from any major medical illness which
could not have been treated at Dhrangadhra or
Surendranagar which is nearby to his work place.
8. I have minutely gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed
by respondent No.2. The facts which are narrated in the reply
are remained uncontroverted by the petitioner. The petitioner
has not disputed that the lockdown was issued with effect
from 25/03/2020. It may be true that the petitioner was served
with the charge-sheet on the day of his retirement, i.e.,
30/04/2020, but the respondent is well within its rights to
initiate a departmental inquiry against the erring official. Mr.
Bharda, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, is
unable to cite any provision of law whereby the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
can be said to have exceeded their jurisdiction while issuing a
charge-sheet to the petitioner. The charge of absence from
duty from 20/03/2020 levelled against the petitioner requires
to be proved by the Presenting Officer by leading appropriate
evidence and petitioner can always counter such evidence by
leading his evidence.
9. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no
illegality committed by the respondents when it has initiated a
departmental inquiry by serving a charge-sheet upon the
petitioner on 30/04/2020. It is a well-settled position of law
that this Court should not interfere with the disciplinary
proceedings initiated by the State unless it is without
jurisdiction and/or malafide, which is not the case here.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
as the petitioner is unable to show any legal disability in the
initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against him, I am of
the view that no interference is required in the matter while
exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
11. At the same time, it is open for the petitioner to submit
his response to the charge-sheet, if the same is not filed so
far, within a period of two weeks from today. Once such
response will be submitted, if the respondent authority finds
the reply satisfactory, the same may be considered and the
authority may pass an appropriate order, including the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7753/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
dropping of the inquiry initiated against the petitioner,
without being influenced by any of the observations made so
far by this Court in this judgment.
12. Before parting with this matter, it is observed that in a
case where respondent No.2 desires to continue inquiry
against the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner
is already superannuated and the incident is of the year 2020
and the petitioner is already superannuated, the inquiry shall
be concluded on or before 31.12.2026.
13. With the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the present
petition is not entertained and accordingly, it is rejected.
Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
