Gujarat High Court
R.D. Joshi (Rajendra Dolatray Joshi) vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4039/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4039 of 2022
================================================================
R.D. JOSHI (RAJENDRA DOLATRAY JOSHI)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MRS NISHA M PARIKH(2397) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 31/08/2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in OA No.02 of 2016 wherein the CAT has rejected the OA filed by the present petitioner challenging his removal from service.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.Parikh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been imposed a very harsh punishment of removal from service for minor misconduct of remaining absent from duty. She has further submitted that the petitioner was suffering from vertigo and hence, he could not remain present in the office due to his medical condition. She has further submitted that in fact the petitioner had also produced the medical certificate (at page no.85) dated 08/09/2009 pointing out that he was suffering from vertigo and hence, he could not attend the duty. It is contended that despite the aforesaid production of the medical certificate, the petitioner was asked by the respondent - authority to obtain the second opinion from the registered medical doctor not below the rank of Civil Surgeon or CMO, Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 23:02:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4039/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined Bhavnagar, which is an illegal demand by the respondent - authority. Thus, it is urged that the order of removal passed by the respondent- authority as confirmed by learned CAT may be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr.Shukla has pointed out the findings recorded by the CAT and submitted that despite having given ample opportunity to the petitioner, he did not choose to remain present to discharge his duty and remained on unauthorized leave for more than 279 days, which constrained the respondent authorities to initiate departmental inquiry against him, which resulted into passing of removal order, which has been confirmed by the CAT. It is therefore submitted that thus, the present petition may not be entertained.
4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was serving as a Postal Assistant at Bhadrod Station Office and he was relieved on 16/09/2009 for attending training of 'point of sale' at Bhavnagar. However, after completing the training, the petitioner left the office on 22/09/2009 on the ground of medical illness. At this stage, we may refer to the medical certificate produced by the petitioner dated 08/09/2009, certifying that he was suffering from vertigo. Thus, this certificate is prior to his relieving on 16/09/2009, and he was required to report for duty on 22/09/2009.
5. When such certificate was produced, the respondent authority asked the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar for the second opinion and this was conveyed vide communication dated 16/12/2009 and thereafter, reminders were also sent on 27/01/2010 and 05/07/2010. We have perused the aforesaid letters, which are on record, wherein the Superintendent of Post Office, Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 23:02:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4039/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined Bhavnagar, informed the petitioner to appear before the CMO, at RMO Office, Sir T Hospital, Bhavnagar. The aforesaid communications referred to the instructions of CMO. The respondent - authorities have adopted the instructions given vide letter dated 18/12/1991 by Director of New Delhi, which allows Leave Sanctioning Authority to secure medical opinion of Registered Medical Doctor not below the rank of Civil Surgeon.
6. Despite these communications, the petitioner neither visited CMO, Bhavnagar for obtaining the second opinion nor reported for duty.
7. The respondents, in order to see that the petitioner is also extended some support, his request for transferring him from Bhavnagar Division to Rajkot Division, which was made vide application dated 27/05/2010, was also accepted and, accordingly the petitioner, on his request was transferred to Talala Post Office vide order dated 07/06/2010. However, the petitioner did not resume at Talaja Post Office also and continued to send the leave applications.
8. This shows the recalcitrant conduct of the petitioner and the benevolence gesture of the respondent. Even after his application to transfer at near place was accepted and he was transferred; he did not resume his duty at the transferred place.
9. It is further noticed and not denied by the petitioner that since he did not report at the transferred place, a notice dated 28/01/2011 was also issued to him with a direction to resume duty with clear instructions that, if he fails to do so, the departmental action would be initiated against him.
10. Despite issuance of the aforesaid notice and intimating the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 23:02:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4039/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined petitioner to the effect that in case he fails to resume his duties, he would be facing disciplinary action; he did not report to duty.
11. We also appreciate further approach of the respondent. The respondent thereafter, by taking a lenient view, gave another chance vide communication dated 08/02/2011 to the petitioner to resume his duties; but he did not choose to do so and ultimately, a charge memo dated 16/19-09-2011 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued. The charge memo refers that the petitioner remained absent for duty without permission with effect form 22/09/2009 and thus violated Rules 62 and 162 of the P&T Manual Volume-III, Rule 93 of Volume IV and failed to maintain devotion to duty. After holding the necessary departmental inquiry, the petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 27/05/2014. The removal order was passed under Rule 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
12. It is not the case of the petitioner either before the CAT or before us that the respondent authorities that it has violated the statutory provisions while conducting the departmental proceedings. At this stage, we may refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, 2021 (2) S.C.C. 612 where the Supreme Court, after considering the era of judgments on the issue of judicial review, has held thus:
"23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan3 and later in Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian4 and further examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others5 wherein it has been held as under:Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 23:02:27 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4039/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined "13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya6 and recently by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others7.
25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decisionmaking 3 1994(6) SCC 302 4 1995(1) SCC 216 5 1995(6) SCC 749 6 2017(1) SCC 768 7 2020(9) SCC 471 process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact."
13. Thus, in the present case, we do not find any violation of either principle of natural justice or statutory rules. The misconduct and the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner is highly deplorable. The department, though have extended their co-operation to see that he resumes the duties and is also accommodated as per his request, however, he did not choose to respect the approach and hence, the petitioner is not worthy of any lenient view.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura / 129 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jul 01 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 01 23:02:27 IST 2025