IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5796 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9351 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ==========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No Yes -

==========================================

MUKESH BAVANJIBHAI PARGHI Versus THE DIVISION CONTROLLER & ANR.

==========================================

Appearance:

KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Petitioner No.1 HAMESH C. NAIDU for the Respondent No.1 MRUNAL DHOLARIA AGP for the Respondent No. 2 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 06/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Special Civil Application No.5756 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner – employee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

(a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ or order and be pleased to;

(b) To quash and set aside the order and award passed by the Labour Court in Ref (LCR) No.49/2018 dated 22.11.2019 by declaring the same as illegal.

(c) To pass an order against the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages with all incidental benefits flowing from the continuity of service.”

2. Special Civil Application No. 9351 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner – employer under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Case No. 49/2018.

3. The facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the employee was serving with employer as a driver and his services came to be terminated on the ground that he had consumed liquor while he was on duty on the route from Jhalod to Jasdan and he was intoxicated, due to which Criminal Case No.378/2015 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondal whereby he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate and despite this fact, the petitioner was terminated from the services without following due procedure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred Reference (LCR) Case No.

49/2018 before the Labour Court, which came to be dismissed.

4. Heard Ms.Khushbu Chhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 –

employer at length.

5. Ms.Khushbu Chhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the services without initiating any inquiry and/or departmental proceedings and, therefore, the order of termination cannot be passed against the petitioner. She has submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error of law and facts in passing the impugned award and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and, therefore, instead of terminating the petitioner from the services, he could have been put in original post or stopped increment for future effect, however, straightway the order of termination was passed and, therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.1 Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has further submitted that the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the charges were proved against the petitioner, which fact is unjust, illegal and arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. Over-and-above, the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the employee deserves to be allowed and the petition filed by the employer deserves to be dismissed.

5.2 In support of her submissions, Ms.Chhaya, l