Gujarat High Court
Rasiklal Ambalal Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14341 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
RASIKLAL AMBALAL MAKWANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. GAUTAM JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VYOM H
SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Vyom H. Sha and learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum Sukhadwala for respondent - State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Forum Sukhadwala waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent - State.
Page 1 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
3. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:
"A. This Honourable court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 17.8.2013 and the consequential order of punishment dated 29.6.2019 and direct the respondent to pay all the consequential benefits including consideration for promotion and other benefits flowing from such order as if the impugned order was never passed.
B. During the admission/ pendency of the present petition this Honourable court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 29.6.2019."
4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE THAT:-
4.1. The petitioner was working as District Registrar of the Cooperative Society, State of Gujarat, and when he was posted at Nadiad, as District Registrar, granted conditional sanction (permission / approval) on 16.07.2007 to one Mahemdavad Taluka Harijan Sanyukta Kheti Sarkari Mandli Limited (herein after referred as "the Society"), to sell the land of the Society.
4.2. It appears that petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 24.08.2009 wherein alleged that while functioning Page 2 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined as District Registrar at Nadiad, he granted aforesaid conditional sanction to the Society to sell the land belonged to the Society, thereby, committed misconduct.
It further emanates from the charge-sheet that as per Disciplinary Authority, land of the Society was new tenure land, could not have been put to sell without prior sanction of the Collector. So, according to Disciplinary Authority, petitioner having failed to discharge his duty, committed misconduct in terms of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1971').
4.3. Petitioner appears to have submitted his reply on 16.01.2010 disputing the charges levelled against him, rather contending inter alia that sanction granted by him was conditional one, inasmuch as, he imposed 13 conditions upon the Society, which include that before actual sale of the land, all necessary permission from all concern, as required in law, be taken by the Society. It is further contended that as per Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Society held on 24.06.2007, wherein a Resolution No.7 passed, whereby it agreed by the Page 3 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Society to sell the land. Thereafter, the Society sought his sanction then, conditional sanction granted by him being District Registrar of the Cooperative Society, which according to him, was purely an administrative decision, passed without any malafide or any extraneous consideration.
4.4. Further, petitioner submitted that as per Section 37 read with Section 77 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961') with its relevant Rules, the Society was well within its right to sell the land and as such, there is no misconduct committed by the petitioner when granted conditional sanction. It was further pointed out that the Society having not obtained requisite permission from the Revenue Department, the then District Registrar, Nadiad ordered an inquiry under Section 86 of 'the Act, 1961' and at the end of such inquiry, nothing adverse found, either against the petitioner or the Society in regards to such process of sale of the land. Nevertheless, the land could not be ultimately sold by the Society at given point of time.
Page 4 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 4.5. The petitioner has also cited past instances with regard to granting such type of conditional sanction accorded by other District Registrars, thereby substantiated the fact that there is no dereliction of duty on his part while granting conditional sanction. It is further submitted by the petitioner that land of Society was already converted from new tenure to old tenure land by Dy. Collector concerned on 30.06.2007 i.e. prior to conditional sanction dated 16.07.2007. Thus, charges levelled against him are not only base-less but require to be dropped.
4.6. The respondent having not satisfied with such reply of petitioner, contemplated the departmental inquiry which was conducted by the Inquiry Officer as per The Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (herein after referred as "Disciplinary Rules, 1971"). On completion of inquiry, after due consideration of evidence and submissions made by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 24.03.2011, had come to the conclusion that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved in the inquiry. Thus, Inquiry Officer has completely exonerated the petitioner Page 5 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined from all such charges levelled against him. 4.7. Nonetheless, after more than 2 years from receipt of such report, the Disciplinary Authority - respondent- State issued a show cause-notice dated 17.08.2013 expressing its disagreement with such findings so recorded by Inquiry Officer and communicated its own reasons of disagreement to the petitioner. 4.8. On receipt of such disagreement - reasons, petitioner filed detailed reply on 07.10.2013 and so also submitted supplementary submission on 29.12.2014, reiterated as referred above, rather also drawn attention of the Disciplinary Authority to the fact that other similarly situated Officers who granted conditional sanction in past, neither subjected to any departmental action nor penalized, rather some of them even promoted. 4.9. It appears from the record that matter remained pending for almost six years without any further proceedings and just one year before retirement of petitioner i.e. 30/06/2020, he was served with the punishment order dated 29.06.2019, whereby respondent imposed the penalty upon petitioner of stoppage of one increment Page 6 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined with future effect, for committing the misconduct, as alleged in the charge-sheet.
4.10. By way of the present writ petition, the aforesaid punishment order is challenged by the petitioner, on several grounds, as set out in the petition.
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah, would respectfully submit that the impugned punishment order is ex-facie erroneous, perverse, arbitrary, contrary to law and as such, passed beyond the charges levelled against the petitioner, thereby, requires to be interfered by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5.2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would submit that there is a gross delay in completing the whole disciplinary proceedings and as such, it is prejudicial to the interest of petitioner, any decision taken by the respondent with unexplained delay is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that after getting exoneration in Page 7 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined departmental inquiry, inasmuch as, Inquiry Officer having not found any charges proved against the petitioner, on submitting his report dated 24.03.2011, imposing punishment on 29.06.2019 would nothing but sheer mental harassment, which requires to be quashed by this Court.
5.3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would respectfully submit that entire basis of inflicting charges against the petitioner was in regards to granting conditional sanction in favour of the Society to sell the land, which according to Disciplinary Authority new tenure land but same is total lie as the land was already converted from new tenure to old tenure on 30.06.2007, prior to granting conditional sanction by petitioner on 16.07.2007. It is respectfully submitted that when the entire basis of charge levelled against the petitioner is found to be erroneous one and not supported by any material evidence on record, such erroneous charge would fall; then nothing remain to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority.
5.4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would respectfully Page 8 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined submit that even foundation of the charge levelled against the petitioner is contrary to evidence coming forth during the course of inquiry, no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner for alleged misconduct. It is submitted that as per settled legal position of law, burden of proof to prove the charge is on the shoulder of department and there is no supporting material evidence produced on record by presenting Officer to prove the charge, and therefore, no fault can be found with Inquiry Officer when exonerated the petitioner from such charge.
5.5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would respectfully submit that one of the imputation of charge in regards that petitioner being District Registrar has no authority to sell the land of the Society, despite that he granted sanction to sell the land beyond his power. He would submit that it is undisputed fact that petitioner never sold the land of the Society. He would further submit that as per the settled legal position, charge must be accurate one which is not observed in the present case.
5.6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would further submit Page 9 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined that there are more than 10 instances cited by petitioner before Disciplinary Authority to show that it was general practice prevailing that whenever any Cooperative Society sought for such sanction, a conditional sanction was granted by District Registrar, Cooperative Society.
It is submitted that in most of the cases, Registrars concerned have been imposed few conditions, unlike 13 conditions imposed by petitioner. It is further submitted that from the conditional sanction order, a prudent one can very well say that petitioner has acted in a manner not prejudicial to the interest of the State, that too without any ill-intention. It is further submitted that when nothing adverse found against the petitioner, as there is no allegation of malafide, malice and / or any extraneous consideration found whereby nothing personally gained by petitioner when granted conditional sanction, inflicting punishment is not only contrary to law but it amounts to demoralize the honest officer like petitioner who otherwise had an impeccable career.
5.7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would further submit Page 10 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined that subsequent to grant of conditional sanction by petitioner, the then District Registrar initiated inquiry as per the Act, 1961 but nothing adverse found against petitioner and Office Bearers of the Society, rather Office Bearers of the Society were exonerated from the criminal prosecution launched against them as Police Investigating Officer filed 'C' summary, in the criminal case. Such fact is totally overlooked by disciplinary authority when imposed punishment.
5.8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would further submit that merely because another view is possible, Disciplinary Authority could not have disagreed with the view taken by the Inquiry Officer, inasmuch as, view of Inquiry Officer is not held to be erroneous, perverse and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that as per settled legal position of law, when report of Inquiry Officer showing no charges proved against the delinquent, in that circumstances, Disciplinary Authority may have a disagreement but such disagreement requires to be on a strong foundational fact and evidence, which overlooked by Inquiry Officer when exonerated the delinquent. It is Page 11 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined respectfully submitted that nothing sort of such observed by Disciplinary Authority when disagreed with the view of the Inquiry Officer, rather committed serious error in law when imposed punishment, whereby travelled beyond scope of the charge-sheet. 5.9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would submit that any findings or disagreement beyond the charge-sheet are without authority of law and would not amount to valid disagreement but merely constitute an individual comment having no nexus with the charges. It is submitted that para-4 of such disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority would travel beyond scope of charge, inasmuch as, permission granted by Deputy Collector on 30.06.2007 was not whispered in the charge-sheet and as such, not come within the purview of petitioner being District Registrar of Cooperative Society, to see that such permission granted by Deputy Collector concerned was according to law or not. 5.10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would further submit that despite drawing attention of 25 instances than one, all other District Registrars who granted sanction, for Page 12 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined any reason only one of such instance considered by Disciplinary Authority when recorded his disagreement. It is submitted that Disciplinary Authority was also not sure in coming to the conclusion that other District Registrar has definitely committed any misconduct. It is further submitted that respondent has wrongly placed reliance upon the circular dated 10.6.2011, inasmuch as, the same was neither existing when conditional sanction granted, nor throw any light on the issue germane in the matter. Thus, not applicable in the present case.
5.11. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would respectfully submit that when it is not proved on record that there is any misconduct committed by the petitioner and in absence of any ill-motive, malice, malafide and / or other extraneous conditions etc. not germane, as per settled legal position of law, no punishment could have been inflicted upon the petitioner. It is submitted that as per various case laws of Hon'ble Apex Court, followed by this Court, mere error of judgment, act of negligence, innocent mistake etc., all such acts would not constitute Page 13 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined the misconduct. It is submitted that if the administrative decision of petitioner granting conditional sanction found to be not sustainable in law, either Department or Member of Society could have challenged it as per Section 153 /155 of the Act, 1961, which is not done. 5.12. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would humbly submit that when there is an unexplained delay on the part of Disciplinary Authority to conclude the disciplinary action against the petitioner after such long time, especially when no misconduct found and proved on record, disagreement of Disciplinary Authority is on unsustainable reasons and the entire base of charge- sheet falls, and thus, this Court must exercise its discretionary power in favour of the petitioner by issuing Writ of Mandamus, and grant the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.
5.13. To buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would rely upon following three judgments;
i. Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No.10590 of 2024 [Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 417 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693];
ii. Natvarlal Motilal Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in R/Letters Page 14 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Patent Appeal No.185 of 2017 with Civil Application No.1 of 2017; iii. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant Gokalbhai Patel rendered in R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1114 of 2022 with allied matters
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- STATE 6.1. Per Contra, learned Asst. Government Pleader Ms. Forum Sukhadwala would respectfully submit that there is no merit in the present writ petition as undisputedly petitioner without having authority, granted conditional sanction to sell the land of the Society, thereby, committed serious misconduct, which proved on record. 6.2. Learned AGP would further submit that there is a delay and latches on the part of petitioner in questioning show cause notice dated 17.08.2013 in this petition, which filed in year 2019. It is respectfully submitted that when the aforesaid show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner having replied to such show cause notice, later on, cannot be permitted to challenge it, on any grounds.
6.3. Learned AGP would respectfully submit that as per settled legal position of law, in a case of disagreement Page 15 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined with the view/reasons of Inquiry Officer, it is always open for the Disciplinary Authority to issue show cause notice to delinquent with such disagreement. It is submitted that when the reply of delinquent not found satisfactory, after recording reasons of disagreement, Disciplinary Authority can always pass order of penalty / punishment. It is respectfully submitted that there are valid and justifiable reasons set out by Disciplinary Authority to disagree with reasoning of Inquiry Officer who exonerated the petitioner. It is further submitted that when reply of petitioner not found satisfactory, order of punishment imposed upon him which cannot be interfered by this Court.
6.4. Learned AGP would further submit that land in question of the Society was originally new tenure land which might have been converted to old tenure land but considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when petitioner being District Registrar has no authority to grant any sanction to sell the property, having so granted, committed serious misconduct. 6.5. Learned AGP would further submit that petitioner has Page 16 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined acted in haste and has granted conditional sanction within seven days from the receipt of such request from the Society. It is submitted that there are certain provisions of revenue law which clearly overlooked by the petitioner when granted conditional sanction. It is further submitted that there are criminal cases filed against Office Bearer of the Society for mismanagement of affairs of the Society, which clearly overlooked by the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner could not have permitted the Society to sell the land to any individual, inasmuch as, as per land laws of the State, the agricultural land hold by the Society, could not have been sold in favour of non-agriculturist except with prior approval / permission of the Collector concerned, which was undisputedly not received by the Society when conditional sanction granted by the petitioner. 6.6. Learned AGP would further submit that as per circular dated 10.06.2011 issued by the State in Department of Cooperative Society, Gandhinagar, no District Registrar can grant such type of sanction and if any such instance noticed by the Authority, the Disciplinary action be taken Page 17 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined against such Registrar. It is submitted that as per provisions of the Act, 1961, District Registrar was not competent to grant such sanction, having so granted by the petitioner, it would amount to dereliction of duty and petitioner having not maintained devotion to duty, inflicted with punishment with stoppage of only one increment with future effect.
6.7. Learned AGP would further submit that there is no intentional delay on the part of the Disciplinary Authority when passed punishment order in 2019. It is submitted that on receipt of inquiry report in year 2011, Disciplinary Authority has issued show cause notice in year 2013 citing reasons of disagreement to the petitioner, thereby, such action culminated into punishment of petitioner in year 2019, cannot be set aside on mere delay. It is submitted that due to administrative reasons/exigency, there was some time taken by respondent in passing the order of punishment. 6.8. Learned AGP would respectfully submit that petitioner cannot claim negative parity by citing other instances as once it is established on record that he has no authority Page 18 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined to alienate the land of the Society, that too, non- agriculturist, granting such sanction by petitioner amounts to misconduct. It is submitted that none of decisions cited by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi would be applicable and not helpful to the case of the petitioner.
6.9. Making the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. No other and further submissions are being made.
8. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 8.1. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and having regards to the aforestated facts, according to my view, following points arise for consideration.
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, reasons set out by the Disciplinary Authority for its disagreement with reasons of Inquiry Officer, who exonerated the petitioner from all charges, sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the charges levelled against the petitioner Page 19 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined constitute misconduct?, if answer to it 'No', still can it be said that such charges proved against petitioner in the disciplinary inquiry?
(iii) Whether in facts and circumstance of the case, impugned punishment order suffers from delay/laches as disciplinary proceeding/inquiry completed after more than a decade from its insitution?
9. ANALYSIS POINT NO. (i) :
9.1. The facts, which are narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner when worked as District Registrar, Nadiad, granted conditional sanction in favour of the Society to sell its land. The petitioner imposed 13 conditions while passing an administrative order granting conditional sanction to sell the land. As per the charge levelled against him, such land was new tenure land, could not have been sold by the Society.
9.2. It has come on record during the course of departmental inquiry that prior to granting of conditional sanction by petitioner on 16.07.2007, Dy. Collector concerned has Page 20 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined already converted such land from new tenure to old tenure on 30.06.2007. This fact remained uncontroverted on record. If it be so, the basis on which charge-sheet issued against the petitioner that he has accorded conditional sanction to sell the new tenure land of Society, would fall. In view of above, entire basis upon which the charge-sheet issued would not survive, inasmuch as, factual foundation on which charge-sheet prepared and served upon the petitioner was on wrong premise, thus, petitioner could not have been held guilty for any alleged misconduct.
9.3. The Inquiry Officer having noticed the aforesaid facts which came on record by evidence, and so also factored in such kind of conditional sanction accorded by other District Registrars (25 instances were cited), arrived at conclusion that no charges levelled against the petitioner proved in the inquiry. Thus, as per view of Inquiry Officer, petitioner requires to be exonerated from all the charges.
9.4. The respondent - Disciplinary Authority concern having disagreed with such view of Inquiry Officer, issued show Page 21 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined cause notice to petitioner calling upon him to submit his response. The Disciplinary Authority noted down his reasons of disagreement when served show cause notice to petitioner. The petitioner responded to such disagreement / show cause notice by submitting his detailed reply first on 07.10.2013 and supplementary submission on 29.12.2014.
9.5. It is true that as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Disciplinary Rules, 1971, Authority can disagree with the finding / reasons assigned by the Inquiry Officer who exonerated the delinquent (petitioner), but requires to record its own reasons/finding on the charge levelled against delinquent on the basis of the evidence available on record of the inquiry. The aforesaid Sub-rule reads as under, "10. Action on the Inquiry report:--
(1).........
(2) The Disciplinary Authorityshall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authorityon any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreementand record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) .........
(4)........."Page 22 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 9.6. Nonetheless, such disagreement cannot be fanciful and authority cannot allow to take different view as per its own perspective but requires to record cogent / valid and effectual reasons of disagreement germane from the record/evidence which unnoticed by Inquiry Officer when exonerated the delinquent.
9.7. As such, this issue is no longer res integra but decided in so many decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court / this Court, one of which is cited by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi for the petitioner during the course of his submissions. In a case of Natvarlal Motilal Chavda (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held, in para-15 and 15.1, as under;
"15. It is in this context that now even the subsequent exercise of the two disagreement notices that is the one pre impugned judgement and the one post the judgement need to be scanned. Both the notices when seen in light of the entire evidence on record and the charge-sheet would suggest that the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority terming them as 'disagreement' is nothing but a mere reiteration of allegations which pass off as that of reasons for disagreement. Where the Inquiry Officer had held the charges as partly proved, except of adding a few lines imputing malice, mala fide or lack of integrity in the disagreement reasons, for instance in the case of tender process nothing substantial has come forth. Whatever has been observed in the form of disagreement, therefore, is nothing but reiteration of the allegations. Merely because in the perception of the disciplinary authority a different view is possible, it cannot be termed to stand the test of being recorded as a disagreement.Page 23 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined 15.1 In other words, therefore, the perusal of the disagreement notice dated 28.03.2005, when compared to the one dated 01/03.05.2017 would suggest that even in that subsequent notice nothing different is purported to have been brought out. The subsequent notice has been brought on record by virtue of the Civil Application which we have referred to hereinabove and therefore applying the same yardstick as we have done to the show cause notice dated 28.03.2005, we are of the opinion that such reasons cannot be termed as disagreement."
(emphasis supplied) 9.8. It would also apt to refer very pertinent observation made by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case of Union of India and others V/s Dr. V.M. Bhan, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine MP 375 :
(2007) 1 MP LJ 574, wherein speaking for bench, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra (his lordship then was), held thus;
"9. ...........The disciplinary authority disagreed with order dated 29-9-2003. We have carefully perused the reasons for disagreement. On a scrutiny of the same, it is luminescent that the disciplinary authority has really not indicated any reason to meet out the reasons ascribed by the enquiry officer. He has reproduced the charges in a different language. It is needless to emphasise, a note of disagreement has to have reasons of substance which really can be regarded as heart and soul of the order. We are unable to find so."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, in view of above, respondent requires to pass its own reasons/findings when disagreed with reasons / finding of Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence. Page 24 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Nevertheless, such disagreement would not allow to consider on the basis that there is a different view possible in the matter which Disciplinary Authority would like to take, but such view requires to be drawn on the basis of evidence not considered by Inquiry Officer. Once, such disagreement passed through aforesaid test, then after, Authority can proceed further against petitioner, otherwise not.
11. In the present case, after going through the note of disagreement supplied to petitioner by respondent while issuing show-cause notice on 17.08.2013, it is found that no valid and cogent reasons/finding assigned by respondent - Authority in its disagreement note except reiteration of charges levelled against petitioner when served with charge-sheet, non-consideration of evidence in its perspective is apparent, and even point no.4 of such disagreement note as such beyond scope of charge levelled against petitioner.
12. Further, while recording its disagreement, it is erroneously observed by Disciplinary Authority that District Registrar has no authority to sell the land of Page 25 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Society, inasmuch as, undisputedly such was not the charge levelled against the petitioner that he sold the land of Society. Likewise, the reference of provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 is beyond the scope of charge-sheet, inasmuch as, such was not the charge levelled against the petitioner. As such, petitioner while granting conditional sanction imposed in all 13 conditions, in which, one of the conditions that before selling the land, all requisite permission from all concerned be obtained by Society. Same-way, conversion of land by Dy. Collector from new to old tenure would not fall within the domain of petitioner, thereby, any loss caused to the exchequer need not be gone into by the petitioner when granted conditional sanction. The Disciplinary Authority has not considered the vital aspect that there were en-number of instances cited by the petitioner, whereby, prima faice, proved that other District Registrar, Cooperative Society, accorded such kind of conditional sanction to other similarly situated societies, rather Disciplinary Authority conveniently considered only one of such instance, that too, without arriving at a definite conclusion that the concern District Registrar has Page 26 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined committed error of law or not.
13. In nutshell, when reasons of disagreement are neither germane from the evidence nor in consonance with charges, so levelled against the petitioner.
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and having found that reasons so assigned by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the reasons assigned by the impugned Officer, is not sustainable in law, according to my view, such disagreement is without any valid reasons, thus, not sustainable in law. Point No. (i) answered accordingly.
POINT NO. (ii) :
15. The contours of the expression "misconduct" is well described by several pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court followed by this Court. I would like to refer few of such as follow:
15.1. To incisive examination, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407, wherein, held as under:Page 27 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined "MISCONDUCT:
11.Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition as:
A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement offense, but not negligence or carelessness.
Misconduct in office has been defined as:
Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.
12. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987 at page 821 defines misconduct thus:
"The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskilfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected.
Thus it could be seen that the word misconduct though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, Page 28 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve...."
(emphasis supplied) (See also:State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, 1992 AIR(SC) 2188).
13.Mere error of judgment resulting in doing of negligent act does not amount to misconduct. However, in exceptional circumstances, not working diligently may be a misconduct. An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the institution may also amount to misconduct.Acting beyond authority may be a misconduct. When the office-bearer is expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the work, any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds, etc. constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment. (VideDisciplinary Authority-cum-Regl. Managerv.Nikunja Bihari Patnaik,(1996) 9 SCC 69:1996 SCC (L&S) 1194,Govt. of T.N.v.K.N. Ramamurthy[(1997) 7 SCC 101:1997 SCC (L&S) 1749:AIR 1997 SC 3571],Inspector Prem Chandv.Govt. of NCT of Delhi[(2007) 4 SCC 566:(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 58] andSBIv.S.N. Goyal[(2008) 8 SCC 92:(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 678:AIR 2008 SC 2594].)
14. InGovt. of A.P.v.P. Posetty[(2000) 2 SCC 220:2000 SCC (L&S) 254], this Court held that since acting in derogation to the prestige of the institution/body and placing his present position in any kind of embarrassment may amount to misconduct, for the reason, that such conduct may ultimately lead that the delinquent had behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of an incumbent of the post. Page 29 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
15. InM.M. Malhotrav.Union of India[(2005) 8 SCC 351:2005 SCC (L&S) 1139:AIR 2006 SC 80], this Court explained as under :
(SCC p. 362, para 17) "17.... It has, therefore, to be noted that the word 'misconduct' is not capable of precise definition. But at the same time though incapable of precise definition, the word 'misconduct' on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty.The act complained of must bear a forbidden quality or characterand its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve."
A similar view has been reiterated inBaldev Singh Gandhiv.State of Punjab[(2002) 3 SCC 667:AIR 2002 SC 1124].
16.Conclusions about the absence or lack of personal qualities in the incumbent do not amount to misconduct holding the person concerned liable for punishment.(SeeUnion of Indiav.J. Ahmed[(1979) 2 SCC 286:1979 SCC (L&S) 157:AIR 1979 SC 1022].)
17. It is also a settled legal proposition that misconduct must necessarily be measured in terms of the nature of the misconduct and the court must examine as to whether misconduct has been detrimental to the public interest. (VideBank of Indiav.Mohd. Nizamuddin[(2006) 7 SCC 410:2006 SCC (L&S) 1663:AIR 2006 SC 3290].)
18. The expression "misconduct" has to be understood as atransgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character. It may be synonymous as misdemeanour in propriety and mismanagement. In a particular case, negligence or carelessness may also be a misconduct for example, when a watchman leaves his duty and goes to watch cinema, though there may be no theft or loss to the institution but leaving the place of duty itself amounts to misconduct. It may be more serious in case of disciplinary forces. Page 30 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
19. Further, the expression "misconduct" has to be construed and understood in reference to the subject-matter and context wherein the term occurs taking into consideration the scope and object of the statute which is being construed. Misconduct is to be measured in the terms of the nature of misconduct and it should be viewed with the consequences of misconduct as to whether it has been detrimental to the public interest."
(emphasis supplied) 15.2. Even recently Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Shrivastava (Supra), also reiterated similar view, wherein also previous case law on such issue relied upon. It would be apt to refer pertinent observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, reads as under;
"8.1 This Court had ruled that in absence of allegations of extraneous influence, departmental proceedings should not be initiated merely because a quasi-judicial order was incorrect.
9. Further reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and Others [(1999) 7 SCC 409], where this Court had held the quasi-judicial officer's error in judgment does not automatically imply misconduct or favouritism. Disciplinary action requires clear evidence of extraneous influence beyond mere legal mistakes to avoid undermining judicial independence. Similarly, in case of Krishna Prasad Verma through Lrs. vs. State of Bihar and Others [(2019) 10 SCC 640], this Court clarified that while wrong orders by judicial officers should not automatically lead to disciplinary action unless there are allegations of misconduct based on extraneous influences. The remedy under such circumstances would be available to the parties concerned to avail all the remedies available under law. It was further reiterated that unless there are clear cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., Page 31 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect.
16. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order, which does not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the first question is answered in favor of the Appellant".
(emphasis supplied) 15.3. It would also apposite to have a reference of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chandrakant Gokalbhai Patel (supra), wherein after discussing the case law as to what constitute 'misconduct' in departmental proceeding, the Division Bench of this Court in its aforesaid decision observed and held thus;
"22. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, having noted the factual aspects of the matter, the nature of charges and the manner in which the decision was taken for settlement of cases in the Lok Adalat, we are first required to cull out the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to the meaning of term 'Misconduct'.Page 32 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
23. In Inspector Prem Chand versus Government of NCT of Delhi (Supra), the Apex Court has taken note of the observations about the meaning of terms 'misconduct' in State of Punjab and Others versus Ram Singh Ex.Constable reported in 1992 (4) SCC 54, in paragraph 10 as under : -
"10. In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable 1992 (4) SCC 54, it was stated:
"Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999, thus:
'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as:
"Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the officer holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."
In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under:
"The term 'misconduct' implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.
Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.
The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct."
[See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. T.K. Raju, [2006 (3) SCC 143].
24. In Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed (supra), relied therein, it was noted in paragraph 12 that : - Page 33 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined "12. In Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed (1979 (2) SCC 286), whereupon Mr. Sharan himself has placed reliance, this Court held so stating:
"Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster, 17 Q.B. 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers, 1959 1 WLR
698)]. This view was adopted in Sharad Prasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, (61 Bom LR 1596), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza, (10 Guj LR 23). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."
[emphasis supplied]
25. It was observed that in the Chairman and M D, Bharat Pet. Corpn Ltd. versus T K. Raju (supra), it was noted that misconduct is a generic term. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. The misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or the statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.
26. It was noted in Union of India versus J. Ahmed (supra), that there may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation, but that would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy Page 34 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Referring to certain hypothetical examples in paragraph '11' of the said decision, it was observed that :-
"11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct [see Pierce v. Foster] (1886) 17 QBD 536 (at p. 542.) A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) (1959) 1 WLR 698]. This view was adopted in Sharadprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, 61 Bom LR 1596 : (AIR 1961 Bom 150), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza, (1969) 10 Guj LR 23. The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct". In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik, (1966) 2 SCR 434 : (AIR 1966 SC 1051), in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 566 : (AIR 1967 SC 1274), the manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi-judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings.
A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta, (1964) 2 SCR 104 Page 35 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined : (AIR 1963 SC 1756), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the load-sheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationary train causing headlong collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil [see Navinchandra Shakerchand shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Co- op. Department Stores Ltd., (1978) 19 Guj LR 108 at p. 120)]. But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty."
27. It was, thus, observed that the Code of conduct, as set out in the Conduct Rules, clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that the conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of the Conduct Rules would be 'Misconduct'. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is Misconduct. (Reference was made to Pierce Page 36 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined v. Foster, 17 Q.B. 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute Misconduct. (emphasize was to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Sharadprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur reported in AIR 1961 Bom 150 : 61 Bom LR 1596 therein). The definition of Misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, has been noted therein.
28. The decision of the Apex Curt in S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India reported in (1967) 2 SCR 556 : AIR 1967 SC 1274, was further noted to record that though the manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi-judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings, however, a single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or atrocious consequences, the same may amount to Misconduct. It is however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct."
(emphasis supplied) 15.4. What is discernible from the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & this Court, the following propositions, relating to the jurisprudential contours of the expression "misconduct", emanates, which can be summarised as under:
(i) Mere negligence or carelessness is not "misconduct".
(ii) Incompetence, incapability to hold a post, and want of requisite efficiency are also not "misconduct".Page 37 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
(iii) Failure to come up to the highest expectations of an officer holding a responsible post, lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership are also not "misconduct".
(iv) A single act of omission, or error of judgment, would not ordinarily constitute "misconduct"; however, if such act or error results in serious or atrocious consequences it may amount to "misconduct".
(v) "Misconduct" means conduct arising from ill-
motive.
(vi) The misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term oc- curs, having regard to the scope of the Act or the statute which is being construed.
"Misconduct" impliesblameworthyconduct.
(vi) Conduct inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of duty is "misconduct".
(vii) Disregard of a mandatory condition of the contract of service of an employee may constitute "misconduct".
(viii) Similarly, carelessness or negligence resulting in atrocious consequences, may constitute "misconduct". This would ordinarily apply in extreme cases, as is apparent from the illustrative examples given by the Supreme Court in its decision, wherein make it clear that it is only the most extreme and drastic Page 38 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined consequences which could justify categorization of mere carelessness or negligence, on the part of deliquent, as "misconduct".
(ix) Gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty may, however, constitute "misconduct", even in the absence ofmens rea.
(x) Misconduct must ordinarily be wilful in character, and not merely an error of judgment. It must involve a transgression of some established or definite rule of conduct, or doing of some act which is forbidden.
(xi) Action which is detrimental to the prejudice of an institution, may in given cases, amount to "misconduct".
16. Now, keeping the aforesaid factors in mind, when I examined the allegation/charge levelled against petitioner, having so observed hereinabove that petitioner was chargesheeted for according conditional sanction to the Society to sell its land. Such decision accorded by petitioner having discharge his duty as District Registrar. No malafide, malice or any extraneous consideration alleged against petitioner by respondent when served charge-sheet or till inflicted punishment order, and otherwise also nothing on record to remotely Page 39 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined suggests any serious lapses on part of petitioner which would constitute 'misconduct' per se as described herein above. As such, he was chargesheeted because of accorded conditional sanction and nothing more alleges. Even as observed above, basis of issuance of chargesheet against petitioner was erroneous one, inasmuch as, the land of the Society already converted from new tenure to old tenure when conditional sanction accorded by the petitioner, thus, such fact could not form basis of issuance of charge-sheet that the land permitted to sell is new tenure land.
17. Having so held above, mere act of omission, error of judgment and / or act of negligence would not constitute misconduct unless it is serious, reaches to atrocious consequence etc. None of such ingredients, either germane or made out by the respondent - Disciplinary Authority when arrived at the conclusion that there was misconduct committed by petitioner when accorded conditional sanction. Such decision of petitioner, at best can be considered as an error of judgement and/or mistake of law on part of petitioner. Nevertheless, in view Page 40 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined of case law discussed herein above, mere wrong decision of petitioner without any evidence/proof of favoritism and/or no clear evidence of any extraneous consideration when such order passed by petitioner, such an act of petitioner according conditional sanction, according to my view, would not constitute 'misconduct'. Thus, it can be gainsaid that petitioner while discharging his duty as District Registrar, having accorded the conditional sanction would not constitute any misconduct.
18. When such would be the conclusion, petitioner having not committed any misconduct, holding him guilty having found charges proved against him in domestic inquiry as held by respondent is nothing but erroneous and perverse observation and decision of respondent - Disciplinary Authority. The respondent without taking into account the aforestated facts and law, on complete wrong premise held that charges proved against petitioner. Rather, respondent has not even properly appreciated the response/reply submitted by petitioner when confronted with show-cause notice dated 17.08.2013. Had it been considered in proper perspective Page 41 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined by respondent, hopefully, no occasion would have arisen to pass the impugned order by respondent.
19. As can be seen from the record that petitioner has clearly submitted in his reply dated 29.12.2014, that as per Section 37 read with Section 77 and respective Rules of 'the Act, 1961', the Society well within its right to sell the land. It would be appropriate to refer at least Section 37 of 'the Act, 1961';
"37. A Society on its registration shall be a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contract, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings, and to do all such things as are necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted."
The annual general meeting of the Society can be held as per Section 77 of 'the Act, 1961, wherein the decision was in fact taken by the Society to sell the land and before sale get sanctioned from the District Registrar. So, a request made before the petitioner, who happens to be District Registrar, Nadiad, accorded it as aforesaid. It may be true that there is no express provisions in 'the Act, 1961' which authorized the District Registrar to grant such sanction but when Page 42 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Society having taken the decision in its Annual General Meeting (AGM), whereby intended to sell its immovable property which as per Section 37 can very well free to do so, in absence of any such sanction. At the same time, having approached the District Registrar - petitioner with a request to accord his sanction, who inadvertently granted conditional sanction passing the order on his administrative side like other District Registrar also did in past, no fault could have been found with it, in any case, it would not constitute any 'misconduct'.
20. It requires to be considered that petitioner has not sold the land of the Society, rather only accorded conditional sanction to sell the land of the Society with stipulation of 13 conditions unlike others having imposed only few. Having so referred hereinabove, as per Section 37 of 'the Act, 1961', the Society was empowered to sell its land even without getting such approval. So, keeping in mind such fact, the grant of the conditional sanction by petitioner pales into insignificance, and at cost of repetition, not constitute misconduct as per Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Rules, 1971, under which, he was charged. At best, Page 43 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined it can be considered as erroneous administrative decision on part of petitioner, having no authority to accord such conditional sanction, albeit passed without any malafide. At the same time, such administrative decision of petitioner subjected to challenge as per the provisions of 'the Act, 1961', but neither respondent - State nor any of the member of the Society have challenged such administrative decision of the petitioner. Lastly, it has also come on record that despite such sanction, the land of the Society not sold, thus no serious prejudice caused to anyone. Thus, in view of above, according to my view, neither act of petitioner according conditional sanction to the Society constitute 'Misconduct' nor charges levelled against petitioner proved in the domestic inquiry. Point No. (ii) answered accordingly.
POINT NO. (iii)
21. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi has vehemently submitted that without any justifiable reasons, respondent
- Disciplinary Authority concluded the inquiry after decade, then the impugned punishment order passed on 29.06.2019, requires to be quashed on this ground of Page 44 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined delay in completing the domestic inquiry. As can be seen, domestic inquiry initiated against petitioner by issuing charge-sheet on 24.08.2009, ought to have been completed within short span of time when Inquiry Officer's report dated 25.03.2011 received by respondent. Nonetheless, show-cause notice first issued to petitioner by respondent on 17.08.2013 having shown his disagreement with inquiry report, but no explanation worth name coming forth from side of respondent for such delay in issuance of said show-cause notice. Likewise, after issuance of show-cause notice, matter remain dormant at the end of respondent for more than six years for which also no worth name explanation/justification came from side of respondent. Thereafter, finally respondent able to take the decision when passed impugned punishment order on 29.06.2019. Even learned AGP during course of her argument, unable to countenance such submission of petitioner.
22. Prima facie, there is a force in the submission of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joshi, inasmuch as, when Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the reasons assigned by the Page 45 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined Inquiry Officer in its report dated 25.03.2011 but took more than two years to issue show-cause notice to petitioner only on 17.08.2013, that too, for no good reasons, and as such, no explanation coming forth from the respondent for such huge delay in concluding the inquiry, inasmuch as, matter remained dormant for almost six years without any proceedings, it surely caused mental trauma and harassment to the petitioner, especially when he was about to retire in year 2020, when served with the impugned order of punishment in year 2019.
23. At this stage, it would be apt to place reliance upon para-
18 of recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Amresh Shrivastava (Supra), reads thus;
18. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another [1990 Supp SCC 738], wherein the court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the quashing as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 12 years of delay. A reference should also be made to the decision of this Court in P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board [(2005) 6 SCC 636], where it has been reiterated that continuing the departmental proceedings after an undue delay would be unjust, causing unnecessary mental distress and damaging the reputation of the employee for the mistakes committed by the department in initiating disciplinary proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
24. Having so observed above and considering the aforesaid Page 46 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined peculiar facts of the present case, so also considering the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court including in the case of Amresh Shrivastava (Supra), what it emerges from the record that inordinate delay in concluding domestic inquiry remained unexplained by respondent, then continuing the departmental proceedings after undue delay would be unjust, improper, sheer mental harassment to petitioner, thus, requires to be quashed. Point No. (iii) answered accordingly. CONCLUSION:
25. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussion and reasons would lead to inescapable conclusion as follow; 25.1.The Respondent - Disciplinary Authority has erroneously without any just reasons/finding disagreed with reasons assigned by the Inquiry Officer when exonerated the petitioner from all charges.
25.2.Having so discussed and held hereinabove, there is no misconduct, as such, germen from the charges levelled against petitioner and could not have been held to have committed any misconduct when accorded his conditional sanction to the Society to sell its land. When such would Page 47 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined irresistible position, respondent committed serious error of law in holding petitioner guilty for the charges, which otherwise, held not proved as per law.
25.3.Likewise, as observed hereinabove, the domestic inquiry completed after so much inordinate unexplained gross delay by respondent, which would also a ground to interfere with such disciplinary proceeding.
26. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ petition requires to be allowed which is hereby allowed. Accordingly, impugned punishment order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to receive all consequential benefits including consideration of promotion, if any, and other benefits withheld by the respondent pursuant to the impugned order. It goes without saying that as the impugned punishment order no longer survived being quashed then, if respondent needs to revise the pension of petitioner, it will have to do so, without fail.
27. The respondent is hereby directed, and in fact shall have to calculate and pay such withheld benefits to the Page 48 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14341/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined petitioner on or before 31 st December, 2025, failing which, directed to pay such benefits with interest at the rate of 9% from 1st January, 2026 till its actual realization.
Direct Service permitted.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J.) Lalji Desai Page 49 of 49 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Nov 13 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 13 22:32:48 IST 2025