Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

Sureshbhai Jivanlal Rathod – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 2018
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Dipan Desai
For the Respondents: MS. Nidhi Vyas, Asst. Government Pleader

A disciplinary inquiry is legally vitiated if the department fails to examine cited witnesses, denying the accused the right to cross-examination. Furthermore, administrative and disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned, speaking orders to justify their decisions, as this is a fundamental component of the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) State Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 - Rule 9(13) - Applicability of rules of natural justice - Disciplinary inquiry - Absence of examination of witnesses - Where charge-sheets list witnesses, the disciplinary department is mandated to examine them to prove charges - Failure to examine witnesses in an inquiry inhibits the right of the accused to cross-examine and violates the principles of natural justice - An inquiry without witness examination, when charges are denied, is legally vitiated. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial and administrative decisions - Necessity of reasoned orders - It is a settled requirement of law that every administrative and quasi-judicial authority must record cogent, clear, and succinct reasons for its conclusions - Failure to assign reasons renders an order unsustainable in law as it precludes judicial scrutiny and fails to demonstrate objective decision-making. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while employed as a subordinate official, was issued a charge-sheet alleging operational negligence and insubordination towards a superior. During the ensuing disciplinary inquiry, the presenting officer failed to examine any of the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. The inquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved despite the lack of oral evidence. The disciplinary authority adopted these findings to impose a penalty of withholding increments. The appellate authority subsequently affirmed the penalty order. The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that the inquiry process was procedurally flawed and the orders were non-reasoned.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the department failed to adhere to the mandate of the relevant service rules requiring the examination of witnesses to establish charges. Consequently, the petitioner was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority’s order was found to be a non-speaking order, failing to discuss the petitioner's defense or explain the basis for its conclusion. Given the significant delay and the petitioner's age, the Court deemed it inappropriate to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry.

Issues: The main issues were whether an inquiry can be concluded without examining cited witnesses when charges are denied, and whether the disciplinary authority is obligated to provide a reasoned order justifying the imposition of penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a disciplinary inquiry is vitiated if the department fails to produce or examine witnesses to substantiate charges, thereby breaching natural justice. Additionally, administrative decisions impacting an individual's service record must be supported by valid, reasoned explanations to ensure transparency and accountability.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits.

Table of Content
1. procedural initiation of writ petition and scope of relief sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual basis of disciplinary inquiry and initiation of challenge. (Para 5)
3. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural fairness and evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. requirement to examine witnesses in disciplinary inquiries to prove charges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. mandatory requirement for authorities to provide reasoned speaking orders. (Para 13 , 14)
6. final adjudication, quashing of unsustainable orders, and granting of relief. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dipan Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

4. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“A. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the respondent no.1- Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.44 of 2012, order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 – Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal in review application no.17 of 2017 and order dated 29.04.2011, passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A, B and C respectively to the petition.

B. Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-C to the petition.

C. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

SHORT FACTS

5. The petitioner, while serving as Junior Clerk cum cashier in the Regional Transport Office, Rajkot, served with the charge-sheet in the year 2004 for the alleged misconduct committed by him in the year 2000, in regard to not putting the cancelled seal on all the remaining unused receipts upon end of financial year i.e. 31.03.2000 and such receipts were not submitted to concerned person who was keeping the record, which resulted into misuse of few receipts by miscreant, causing loss to the exchequer. Moreover, he was also charged for not registering FIR against miscreant despite informed by his superior – RTO, Rajkot rather abusively informed to superior that he is not going to register FIR.

5.1 The petitioner denied all the charges levelled against him. It is undisputed that during the course of inquiry, despite the witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet, none of the witnesses have been examined by the presenting Officer to prove the charges. The petitioner made specific grievance about non-examination of the witnesses before the Inquiry Officer, which was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that there was no need to examine the witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner.

5.2 The Inquiry Officer has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Upon receipt of the final reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 29.04.2011, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct, thereby, imposed penalty of stoppage of three increments with future effect. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order of penalty before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) by way of Appeal No.44 of 2012. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 05.10.2015 dismissed the said appeal and also Review Application No.17 of 2017 filed in the said appeal vide its order dated 16.02.2018. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADMAULIK J.SHELAT, J. Sureshbhai Jivanlal Rathod – Petitioner Versus Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal & Anr. – Respondents R/Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 2018Decided On : 13-04-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

Sureshbhai Jivanlal Rathod – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9527 of 2018
Decided On : 13-04-2026