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:

“(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 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 305.

(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 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