[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mehul Jayantilal Makampara vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3861 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
MEHUL JAYANTILAL MAKAMPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. JIT P
PATEL(6994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Yatin Oza, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr.Jit Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the State-respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned
AGP waives service of Rule for the State respondents.
2.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.
(B) Your lordships may be please to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the
order dated 19.11.2025 passed by respondent no.2 at
ANNEXURE-A and further be pleased to reinstate the
petitioner in services with full back wages and all
consequential benefits as if the order dated 19.11.2025
was never passed at all.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
petition your lordships be pleased to stay further
execution, operation, implementation and enforcement of
the order dated 19.11.2025 and all other subsequent order
passed pursuant to order dated 19.11.2025 by the
respondent no.2 authority at ANNEXURE-A to the petition
and further be pleased to grant status qua ante as on
18.11.2025."
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
4. At the outset, Mr.Oza, learned Senior Counsel would
strenuously submit that there is a clear violation of the
principles of natural justice at the hands of the respondents
while passing the impugned order dated 19/11/2025 of
dismissal of the petitioner. It is submitted that during the
course of inquiry and to prove charges leveled against the
petitioner, the Presenting Officer appointed by the
disciplinary authority of the respondent had never examined
any witnesses, which is in complete violation of Sub-rule (13)
of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1971").
4.1 It is further submitted that as per the settled position of
law, in any disciplinary inquiry, if the witness is not examined
by the Presenting Officer to prove the charges, the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
inquiry stands vitiated. It is also submitted that the charges
were not otherwise proved in the inquiry and without
appreciating the defense statement of the petitioner in correct
perspective; the harsh and disproportionate punishment has
been imposed upon the petitioner i.e. dismissal of service.
4.2 To buttress his arguments, Mr.Oza, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner, has relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank
and others - (2009) 2 SCC 570.
(ii) Jai Prakash Saini vs. Managing Director, U.P.
Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. - 2026 INSC
(iii) Judgment dated 13.09.2022 rendered by
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin
Panachand Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, being
Special Civil Application No.7989 of 2022.
(iv) Judgment dated 08.04.2026 rendered by this
Court in the case of Punamchand Devraj Dhua v/s.
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and
another, being Special Civil Application No.16329
of 2010.
4.3 Making the above submissions, Mr.Oza, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge this Court to
allow the present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
5. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP would
submit that there is an alternative efficacious remedy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of
dismissal by preferring an appeal before the Gujarat Civil
Services Tribunal (herein after referred as "the Tribunal") as
per Rule 18 of the 1971 Rules. It is submitted that once there
is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner,
this Court should not exercise its discretionary power in favor
of the petitioner; rather, it may relegate the petitioner to
approach the Tribunal.
5.1 Mr.Rami, learned AGP would place reliance upon the
reply filed by the respondents in this matter and would submit
that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice at
the hands of the respondents as alleged.
5.2 It is submitted that all throughout, the petitioner was
granted full opportunity and in fact, he was allowed to bring
his witnesses during the course of inquiry. It is further
submitted that there are serious charges against the
petitioner and due to his misconduct; it caused loss to the
exchequer.
5.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner is also facing a
criminal trial for the serious offence for which he was
departmentally charged and ultimately, considering the
defense statement of the petitioner and upon appreciation of
evidence made available during the course of inquiry, the
disciplinary authority, after following due process of law,
imposed the punishment of dismissal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
5.4 It is lastly submitted that if this Court comes to the
conclusion that there is any violation of the principles of
natural justice by the respondents having not examined the
witnesses to prove the charges, an opportunity may be given
to the respondents to hold the inquiry afresh from the stage
after the submission of the defense statement.
5.5 Making the above submissions, Mr.Rami, learned AGP
would urge this Court to dismiss the present petition.
6. In rejoinder arguments, Mr. Oza, learned Senior
Advocate, would submit that when the impugned order is
passed in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no
bar under law not to entertain this petition, on the ground
that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner
to approach the Tribunal.
7. No other or further submissions have been made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, it
would emerge that during the course of inquiry, the
Presenting Officer did not examine the witnesses to prove the
charges leveled against the petitioner. Prima facie, the
charges are serious in nature and require to be proved against
the petitioner during the course of inquiry by leading
appropriate evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
9. So far as the preliminary objection of Mr. Rami, learned
AGP, that this Court should not entertain this petition on the
ground that there is an alternative efficacious remedy
available is concerned, there is no substance in such
submission/objection, inasmuch as the non-examination of
witnesses during the inquiry and due to which the charges
cannot be said to have been proved, rather due to this fact,
the inquiry stand vitiated. The impugned order requires to be
considered as passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice [See: Nitin Panachand Parmar (supra)].
9.1 Once there is a violation of the principles of natural
justice at the hands of the respondents while passing the
impugned order, irrespective of any alternative remedy
available to the petitioner in law, this Court is not precluded
from examining such grievance of the petitioner raised by way
of this petition. It is true that in a given case, if there is an
alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court,
while exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, may relegate the petitioner to such
remedy, but it is not an absolute rule.
9.2 It would be apposite to refer to and rely upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent
Educational Society v. UCO Bank - (2024) 6 SCC 579,
wherein it is held thus :
"37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved
out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability
of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the enactment in
question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are
repealed; and
(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the
principles of natural justice."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.3 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and applying the
ratio of the said decision referred supra, the preliminary
objection raised by learned AGP is hereby rejected.
10. As per Sub-rule (13) of Rule 9 of the 1971 Rules, it was
incumbent upon the Presenting Officer to examine the
witnesses to prove the charges, which is indisputably not
examined. The aforesaid rule reads thus:
"9(13): On the date fixed for the Inquiry, the oral and
documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are
proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of
the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses shall be
undefined examined by or on behalf of the Presenting
Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the
Government servant The Presenting Officer shall be
entitled to re- examine the witnesses on any points on
which they shall have been cross-examined but not on any
new matter, without the leave of the Inquiry authority. The
Inquiry Authority may also put such questions to the
witnesses as it thinks fit."
10.1 The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin
Panachand Parmar(supra) has observed thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
8. The decision in the case of Roopsingh Negi (supra) in para
14 and 23, observe as under:
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is
a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer
performs a quasi judicial function. The charges
leveled against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry officer
has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported evidence
collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer against all the accused by
itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was
examined to prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents
thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have
been treated as evidence.
23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary
authority as also the appellate authority are not
supported by any reason. As the orders passed
by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been
assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon
the confession made by the appellant, there
was no reason as to why the order of discharge
passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of
self-same evidence should not have been taken
into consideration. The materials brought on
record pointing out the guilt are required to be
proved. A decision must be arrived at on some
evidence, which is legally admissible. The
provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding but
the principles of natural justice are. As the
report of the Enquiry Officer was based on
merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry
Officer apparently were not supported by any
evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however
high may be, can under no circumstances be
held to be a substitute for legal proof."
9. Apparently perusal of the inquiry officer's report would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
indicate that it is a mere reproduction of reply and
response of the Presenting Officer and on that basis
holding the charges as proved. This is in violation of the
principles of natural justice and the rules in question.
Obviously apparent it is that the inquiry officer and the
disciplinary authorities have rushed through the
proceedings in a slipshod manner throwing the rule book
to the winds merely to comply with the time limit in the
order dated 30.11.2021 in the petition filed earlier."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.2 In view of the aforesaid uncontroverted facts and the
fact remains that no oral evidence led before the Inquiry
Officer, inasmuch as no witness was examined by the
Presenting Officer to prove the charges, in view of the
aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court and
the Hon'ble Apex Court, according to my considered view, the
charges cannot be held to be proved and as such, the inquiry
stands vitiated.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I am of
the considered view that there is a clear violation of the
principles of natural justice by not examining the witnesses
during the inquiry, whereby the petitioner was deprived of his
right to cross-examine the witness. Consequently, the
impugned decision of the disciplinary authority passed on the
basis of that inherent faulty inquiry also amounts to pass in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.11.2025
passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Consequently,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3861/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
the petitioner is required to be reinstated with continuity of
service, albeit without any back wages.
13. As requested by Mr.Rami, learned AGP to allow the
respondents to hold a de novo inquiry from the stage after the
filing of the defense statement of the petitioner is concerned,
considering the facts and circumstance of the present case,
such request is accepted. It is open for the respondents to
hold an inquiry against the petitioner from the stage after the
filing of the defense statement by the petitioner.
14. It goes without saying that to prove the charges leveled
against the petitioner, the respondent/Presenting Officer shall
have to examine the witnesses and Inquiry Officer is required
to examine/evaluate the evidence made available during the
course of inquiry and submit his report to the disciplinary
authority. Thereafter, observing the principles of natural
justice, the disciplinary authority shall pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
15. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
