Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Devbhadrasinh Bachubha Solanki – Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director Gujarat Energy Transmission & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 410 of 2012
Decided On : 04-03-2024
Punishment - Disciplinary Authority - S.B.I. Vs. A.G.D. Reddy 2023 (3) SCC 117, Chennai Metropolitan Water supply and sewerage board and others Vs. TT Muralibabu (2014) 4 SCC 108, Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation (2017) LawSuit (Guj) 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with fraudulent activities and subsequently terminated from service. The petitioner challenged the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, claiming it to be harsh and disproportionate. The petitioner argued that the defense raised was not considered properly, rendering the orders erroneous and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority's findings were based on evidence and within the scope of judicial review. The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the consideration of the petitioner's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles established in S.B.I. Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, Chennai Metropolitan Water supply and sewerage board and others Vs. TT Muralibabu, and Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings and the need for evidence-based findings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, ruling that no interference was required, and the petition was devoid of merits. The court discharged the rule and vacated any interim relief, with no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner mainly against the order of imposing punishment and quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently, thereafter, confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority on the ground that though the petitioner has filed his explanation before the Disciplinary Authority against the charge levelled against him and as the Government has recovered the amount of loss which is incurred, due to the fault of the petitioner and therefore, the imposition of punishment against the present petitioner is very harsh and disproportionate and therefore, the present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
(b) Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the termination Order No.TCAL/HR/Private/DA/DBS/3838, dated 14.12.2009 issued by the respondents and also quash and set aside the order of rejecting the appeals of the petitioner dated 22.05.2010 and 01.06.2010 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and with all benefits available to the petitioner in the interest of justice.
(c) Be pleased to stay the termination Order No.TCAL/HR/Private/DA/DBS/3838, dated 14.12.2009 issued by the respondents and also quash and set aside the order of rejecting the appeals of the petitioner dated 22.05.2010 and 01.06.2010 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, hearing and final hearing of this petition by way of interim relief in the interest of justice.
(d) Such other and further relief(s) as are deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity be granted.”
2. The fact of the present case is mentioned in Para-3 of the petition.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent authorities by issuing the appointment Letter No. TCG /EST/DR-1 14 dated: 01/04/1991 and since then the petitioner was serving with the respondents sincerely and honestly without any spot or any adverse remarks.
2.2 It was alleged and charged by the respondents that during the period from August 2003 to March 2007 the petitioner along with other five persons has fraudulently tempered with the accounts of the respondents in collusion and misappropriate the total amount worth Rs. 14,86,668/- as per the report dated: 27/04/2007. That after the aforesaid allegation the petitioner and other as per the report dated: 27/04/2007 are suspended from service by order dated: 30/04/2007.
2.3 The petitioner submits that, thereafter the respondents had issued a charge sheet against the petitioner and other five persons by Order No.TDA/Administration/KHAPA/Private/111, dated: 30/05/2007 and made certain financial allegation. It is further stated that the petitioner has also given reply to the charge sheet dated: 02/01/2008 after asking certain dates for filling reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter the petitioner has also given further reply dated: 12/02/2009 after inquiry to defend the case to the respondent authorities and explained each and every aspects.
2.4 The petitioner submits that thereafter departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was remained present and defended the case and placed all the evidence on record and he has also given the reply to all the allegations properly and honestly. It is stated that after the departmental inquiry was over the respondents has issued show cause notice dated: 03/10/2009 stating that all the allegations as per the charge sheet are proved and why the petitioner should not be terminated from the service. That the petitioner had given the reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated: 05/11/2009 to the respondents.
2.5 That after the departmental inquiry, only the petitioner was terminated from service by Order No. TCAL/HR/Private/DA/DBS/3838 dated: 14
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
The court cannot interfere in the findings recorded by the authority while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of im....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their judgment unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts do not interfere unless findings are perverse or punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
