[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Prabhatsinh Amarsinh Makwana vs General Manager on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15450 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
PRABHATSINH AMARSINH MAKWANA
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS MOHINI BHAVSAR FOR MR BHARAT JANI(352) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms.Mohini Bhavsar, learned advocate for
Mr.Bharat Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents.
1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or an
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
aside the impugned charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and the
order dated 16.9.2013 passed by respondent No. 1
deciding to hold departmental inquiry in respect of the
alleged misconduct committed way back in 1996 i.e. after
a lapse of more than 16 years on the ground that it is
unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, bad in law, improper, mala
fide and in violation of the Service Rules of the respondent
Corporation as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India;
(B) pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the
respondents from holding the departmental inquiry
pursuant to the charge sheet dated 10.7.2013 and the
order dated 16.9.2013 for the alleged misconduct
committed by the petitioner way back in the year 1996, i.e.
after a lapse of more than 16 years;
(C) pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to
direct the respondents to pay all the benefits of higher Pay
Scale of Fifth Pay Revision as per the office orders dated
3.9.2012 and 25.7.2013 enclosed at Annexures-C and D
respectively;
(D) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other
and further relief(s) as the facts and circumstances of the
present case may require;
(E) cost of this petition may please be awarded;"
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the
petitioner was working as a Depot Manager at the Palanpur
godown of the respondent - Gujarat State Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the
Corporation"). While on duty as Godown Manager at
Palanpur on 19/12/1996, the petitioner was trapped by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau while accepting a bribe of Rs.1,650/-
from a fair price shop-keeper. In that view of the matter, he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
was placed under suspension on 22/12/1996. The petitioner
was prosecuted in an ACB case, but was later on acquitted by
the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 27/6/2000
passed in Special Case No.102 of 1997. Thereafter, the State
appears to have filed an appeal before this Court, being
Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2000, which also came to be
dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment
dated 24/7/2009.
3.1 It appears that vide a communication letter dated
22/12/2012, the Corporation decided to release all benefits,
including a higher pay-scale, in favour of the petitioner from
the date of his suspension, i.e., 22/12/1996.
3.2 It further appears that after a substantial delay, the
respondent issued a charge-sheet on 10/7/2013 upon the
petitioner for the very charges for which he was tried and
acquitted, as above.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
action of the Corporation, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of this petition.
4. This Court, vide its order dated 10/7/2014, passed the
following order :
"Heard Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, learned advocate for Mr.Bharat
Jani,learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Varun Patel,
learned advocate for the respondents.
Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the Court is of the view
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
that the matter requires consideration. Hence, Issue Rule
returnable on 22nd September, 2014. By way of ad-interim
relief, further proceedings pursuant to the chargesheet
dated 10.07.2013 are hereby stayed.
Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice
of rule on behalf of the respondents."
(emphasis supplied)
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
5. Ms. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner, would
submit that there is a gross and inordinate delay on the part
of the Corporation in initiating departmental inquiry against
the petitioner and on this ground alone, the impugned charge-
sheet may be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the
incident of accepting alleged bribe which is referred to in the
charge-sheet took place in the year 1996, whereas the charge-
sheet in question was issued on 10/7/2013. It is a settled
position of law that delay in the initiation of a departmental
inquiry against an employee cannot be sustained in law.
5.1 Ms.Bhavsar, learned advocate, would further submit that
the charge leveled in the departmental proceedings is the
same for which the petitioner was already tried and acquitted
by the Trial Court, which judgment was confirmed by this
Court. It is submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted
of the charge of corruption by a Competent Court of law, than
the Corporation cannot later on after substantial delay
departmentally charged him for the very same incident.
5.2 To buttress her argument, Ms.Bhavsar, learned advocate
has relied upon the following judgment:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
(i) State of Gujarat vs. Ajitsinh Mahipatsinh Jhala
- 2023 (0) AIJEL -HC 247060 : 2023 (0) GUJHC
40797.
5.3 By making the above submissions, Ms. Bhavsar, learned
advocate for the petitioner, would urge this Court to allow the
present petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :
6. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the
respondents, would submit that due to the pendency of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Corporation
was not in a position to initiate a departmental inquiry against
the petitioner. He submitted that as soon as the decision was
taken by the State not to challenge the judgment and order
passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the
Corporation decided to initiate an inquiry against the
petitioner, whereby the charge-sheet came to be issued.
6.1 Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate, would further submit
that merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case of the ACB, it would not mean that the
Corporation cannot initiate a departmental inquiry against
him. It is submitted that there is no deliberate and inordinate
delay on the part of the Corporation to initiate the inquiry
against the petitioner.
6.2 By making the above submissions, Mr.Munshaw, learned
advocate for the respondents, would urge this Court to
dismiss the present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
6.3 No other or further submissions have been advanced by
the learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through the pleadings and documents
made available on record, it is not in dispute that the
impugned charge-sheet came to be issued by the Corporation
on 10/07/2013 for the alleged misconduct of the petitioner
committed in the year 1996, precisely on 19/12/1996, in
relation to allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs.1,650/-. On the
face of the impugned charge-sheet, it can be culled out that
the Corporation wants to initiate a departmental inquiry
against the petitioner for the charge for which the petitioner
was also prosecuted and later on acquitted by the Trial Court
vide its decision dated 27/06/2000 in the aforesaid ACB case.
Such order of acquittal was not disturbed by this Court, when
its dismissed the aforesaid State appeal.
8. It is a well-settled position of law that delay in the
initiation of an inquiry cannot be allowed to sustain without
any justifiable reasons renders the action arbitrary. There is
no justifiable reason for the delay in initiating the
departmental inquiry forthcoming from the side of the
Corporation, even though it has belatedly filed a reply in this
matter only on 16/02/2026.
9. Ms. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has
correctly placed reliance upon the decision of the Division
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
Bench of this Court in the case of Ajitsinh Mahipatsinh
Jhala (supra), wherein upon noticing the position of law set
out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, it was held
thus:
"5. Delay in commencing departmental proceedings without
any justification renders the action arbitrary. This position of
law is well settled in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani
Singh & Anr. [1990 (Supp) SCC 738]. There was a delay of
12 years in initiating proceedings and there was no
satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuing the
charge memo. The Supreme Court held that it would be unfair
to permit the departmental enquiry to proceed, observing thus,
"The irregularities which were the subject matter of the
enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-
1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not
aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it
only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was
doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/985/2023 JUDGMENT DATED:
31/07/2023 undefined irregularities and the investigations
were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to
think that they would have taken more than 12 years to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal.
There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in
issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it
will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be
proceeded with at this stage."(para 4 )
5.1 In State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC
154], the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the
issue to hold that there are no pre- determined principles to
judge when the delay would vitiate the proceeding and that
each case has to be considered taking into account all relevant
facts and circumstances. The Court however highlighted the
effect, which the prolonged proceedings may have on the
employee by observing, "The delinquent employee has a right
that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded
expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony
and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily
prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the
proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature
of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has
occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the
delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in
pursuing the charges against its employee." (para 19)
5.2 The case of N. Radhakishan (supra), was a case where
there was a delay in conclusion of inquiry but the test of
prejudice would operate with added rigour when there is a
delay in initiation of the inquiry itself.
5.2.1 The Court proceeded to observe, "It is the basic principle
of administrative justice that an officer enterusted with a
particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently
and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path
he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per
relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes
prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he
is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in
conducting the disciplinary proceedings." (para 19)
5.3 In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board
[(2005) 6 SCC 636], the Apex Court held that the delay in
initiating inquiry at the distant point of time by itself may
operate prejudicial to the delinquent. It was observed,
"....allowing the respondent to proceed further with the
departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very
prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government
official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity
would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the
officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against
a government employee should, therefore, be undefined
avoided not only in the interests of the government employee
but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring
confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this
stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to
the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and
more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter
of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due
to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much
more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the
department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary
proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
5.4 In light of above principles of law governing, learned
Single Judge was eminently justified in granting relief to the
petitioners. The belated issuance of charge-sheet in each case
could not be countenanced in law. The very delay of eight
years or six years in issuing charge-sheet was a prejudice
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
occurred to the petitioner-delinquent. Law would not permit
issuance of charge-sheet after passage of such long time."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and applying the ratio of
the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, it can
be gainsaid that the delay in the initiation of the inquiry at the
instance of the respondent can be justified; as held, delay in
the initiation of an inquiry against a delinquent without a
justifiable reason renders the action arbitrary. Once the
impugned action of the Corporation is held to be arbitrary, it
is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it
cannot be sustained in law.
11. Apart from the aforesaid facts, Ms. Bhavsar, learned
advocate for the petitioner, is also correct in her submission
that since the petitioner was acquitted of the charges of
corruption by a competent Court of law in the aforesaid ACB
case, for the very same charge, the petitioner cannot be again
subjected to a departmental inquiry. It is reported to this
Court that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner
came to be retired in the year 2017. In such circumstances as
well, I am of the view that the petitioner need not be
subjected to further ordeal of facing a departmental inquiry.
CONCLUSION :
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, observations and
reasons, I am of the view that the impugned action of the
Corporation of the initiation of an inquiry while issuing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15450/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
impugned charge-sheet dated 10/7/2013 is after inordinate
and unjustifiable delay, thus, it is unsustainable in law.
13. Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 10/7/2013
and the order dated 16/09/2013 passed by respondent No.1
deciding to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner
are hereby quashed and set aside.
14. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition
is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
