Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Valjibhai Pataliya vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11309 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
=========================================
ASHOKBHAI VALJIBHAI PATALIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR. ARCHIT P JANI for the Petitioner.
MS POONAM M MAHETA for the Petitioner.
MR ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 6.8.2020 of confirming the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 as well as order dated 22.2.2021 imposing penalty of withholding of increment for the period of six month without future effect.
Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
3. The facts of the case as stated by learned advocate Mr. Archit P. Jani is that the petitioner was performing his duties as Police Sub-Inspector at Bamanbore Police Station. On 29.6.2019, the State Monitoring Cell carried out a raid and registered offence under the provisions of Sections 65 (A) (E), 81, 83, 98 (2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act against the accused persons named in the said FIR being C.R. No. III-93 of 2019 registered with Bamanbore Police Station. The main accused Bhupat Govind Palariya was a listed Bootlegger and as prohibited liquor was found, the same was considered as a negligence on the part of the petitioner for which he was charge-sheeted and ultimately upon full-fledged inquiry, though the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the aforesaid finding and issued a show-cause notice pursuant to which the petitioner was heard and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.4.2020 imposed penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect. Thereafter, by order dated 6.8.2020 passed by Additional Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, the period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 was considered to be suspension period.
4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 6.8.2020, the petitioner filed appeal which also came to be rejected vide order dated 24.9.2020. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application and the Revisional Authority was pleased to allow the revision application vide order dated 22.2.2021 and penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect was modified in terms of withholding the increment for six Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined months without future effect. However, the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 was not withdrawn or modified. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. To understand the facts in brief, the following chart would give the exact idea about when the offence had taken place, when the show-cause notice was issued, when the order imposing penalty was issued and when the said penalty was modified.
Date Event
29.6.2019 State Monitoring Cell conducted a raid and
seized prohibited liquor and vehicles totalling Rs.48,22,710/-. In pursuance thereof, FIR being C.R. No. III-93 of 2019 was registered with Bamanbore Police Station for the offences of Sections 65 (A) (E), 81, 83, 98 (2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
1.7.2019 The petitioner was placed under suspension.
21.12.2019 The Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner for alleged breach of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.
5.1.2020 The petitioner submitted his written statement.
16.1.2020 Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and hence, exonerated the petitioner.
17.4.2020 Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued show- cause notice.
Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined 25.4.2020 The petitioner submitted detailed reply pleading not guilty.
30.4.2020 The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding increment for one year without future effect.
30.4.2020 The petitioner's suspension is revoked and was posted at Intelligence Department.
25.5.2020 The petitioner filed statutory appeal before Appellate Authority against penalty order.
6.8.2020 Additional Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) confirmed the period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 as suspension.
24.9.2020 Appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed.
29.10.2020 The petitioner filed revision before the Revisional Authority.
22.2.2021 Revision Application was partly allowed and penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect was modified in terms of withholding the increment for six months without future effect.
6. Essentially, the issue before the Court is that whether the act of the petitioner can be said to be an act of negligence for which the petitioner was penalized for withholding increment for one year without future effect which was thereafter modified in revision by withholding the increment for six months without future effect and in view of that, whether the petitioner's suspension period which was not regularized, can the said order be said to be Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined just, legal and proper or not.
7. Mr. Archit P. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner was serving as PSI at Bamanbore Police Station, has been made a scapegoat as though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the said finding and without considering the reply of the petitioner in its true and proper perspective, without being factual foundation to arrive at a disagreement and to impose penalty against the petitioner, imposed penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect. Thereafter, in revision preferred by the petitioner, the said penalty was modified in terms of withholding the increment for six months without future effect.
8. Mr. Jani pointed out from the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.4.2020 that while noting the fact that raid was carried out at a distance of 30 Kms. from the Police Station and also knowing the fact that main accused i.e. Bhupat Govind Palariya was a listed Bootlegger, there was no offence registered against him since 2017 in Bamanbore Police Station which would indicate that the accused person was inactive in the jurisdiction of the Police Station where the petitioner was serving. Despite that, it was held that the petitioner remained negligent for which there is no basis to indicate that it is on the basis of the negligence of the petitioner, the Bootlegger was operating in his area. Learned advocate Mr. Jani pointed out from the said order itself that it is not the case that the activity related to the prohibition was being carried out right under the nose of the petitioner or in very nearby area from where the Police Station is situated or that despite Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined having informed about the activities of the accused person related to prohibition, the present petitioner did not act. Mr. Jani further submitted that in fact, though the present petitioner had to go for a training at Gandhinagar as well as considering the fact that the official vehicle allotted to the petitioner was engaged in piloting of some VIP, the petitioner performed his duty and had carried out the patrolling in his jurisdiction.
Mr. Jani further submitted that though the State Monitoring Cell has carried out the raid, the order itself indicates that the liquor had come from Rajasthan and had reached upto Chotila, but during that period, the vehicle carrying illegal liquor must have travelled from Rajasthan border till Chotila and passed through various jurisdictions of other Police Stations as well and if the petitioner is considered to be a negligent person, in that case, the concerned Officers of all those Police Stations also were required to be considered as negligent because it is from their jurisdiction, the vehicle carrying the liquor had travelled upto Chotila.
Mr. Jani further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was not performing his duty at the time when the incident took place. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was resting at his home or doing some other activities rather than performing the duty when the raid was carried out. In fact, the petitioner was patrolling and the area where the raid was carried out was 30 Kms. far from the Police Station and, therefore, such charges of negligence are absolutely baseless and even the Disciplinary Authority also has not assigned any concrete reason based on any evidence on record Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined during the course of inquiry for imposing punishment upon the petitioner and, therefore, the order imposing punishment upon the present petitioner can be termed as an order without application of mind and, therefore, when the scope of judicial review of an order imposing punishment, more particularly when the punishment is of a minor, is very narrow, the petitioner can establish that this is a case of non-application of mind and it would vitiate the entire inquiry and, therefore, in such circumstances, this Court can interfere in the findings of the Enquiry Report which are in favour of the petitioner and in the instant case, it is the Disciplinary Authority which has taken a different view without there being any factual foundation for taking such view.
9. Mr. Jani relied upon the three decisions of this Court wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has held in favour of the petitioner and quashed and set aside the order of punishment and consequential order. Firstly, he relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of D. G. Gamit v. State of Gujarat and another, delivered on 25.9.2019 in Special Civil Application No.8792 of 2008 and submitted that even the coordinate Bench of this Court has also considered such breach to be superflous and amounting to non-application of mind and has quashed and set aside the order of punishment of stoppage of increment and non-regularization of suspension period.
10. Thereafter, Mr. Jani relied upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarjak Nileshbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, delivered on 10.3.2022 in Special Civil Application No.14473 of 2021 wherein also the facts were more or less similar, the coordinate Bench of this Court held that Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined even according to the department, it was a running offence and the truck had passed through various district and but for it being intercepted in the jurisdiction of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be singled out for having committed negligence or inefficiency.
11. Lastly, Mr. Jani relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Keval Markandrai Raval v. State of Gujarat and others, delivered on 9.1.2025 in Special Civil Application No.20115 of 2022 wherein this Court has taken taken a view that in similar facts, when in the preliminary inquiry as well as inquiry report, when it was categorically observed that the negligence cannot be attributed to the petitioner of that petition and that there was no evidence against the petitioner of that petition, it was a case of victisimisation, such imposition of penalty was uncalled for and hence, the impugned order of punishment was quashed.
12. Mr. Jani therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned orders i.e. (i) order dated 6.8.2020 of confirming the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 as well as (ii) order dated 22.2.2021 imposing penalty of withholding of increment for the period of six month without future effect.
13. Mr. Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that only a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months without future effect is imposed upon the petitioner and the same is based on finding of facts and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda relied Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Versus Umesh reported in 2022 (6) SCC 563 dated 22.3.2022 and by relying upon the aforesaid decision submitted that in exercise of judicial review, of a disciplinary enquiry, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of disciplinary authority. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of Patiala and others Versus S. K. Sharma reported 1996 (3) SCC 364 dated 27.3.1996 and by relying upon observations made in paragraph No.28 in the said decision submitted that in a given case the principles of nature justice are not required to be followed stricto senso and even a post decisional hearing also can be given to the aggrieved employee if at all Court finds any substance in the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner.
14. It was further contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda that in the instant case before imposing the penalty on the petitioner, the respondent authority has issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner had replied and therefore, principles of natural justice are substantially complied with. Lastly, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that in case if, the petitioner's submission about non-compliance of principles of natural justice are accepted, in that case also, the respondent may be permitted to carry out to hold re-inquiry from the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the higher authority and higher authority may be permitted to pass a fresh order, record the reasons for disagreement with the report of the preliminary inquiry and from that stage, the respondent authority may be permitted to Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined carry out the procedure denovo.
15. In the petition reply is filed and is on record, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda pointed out from reply as well as from his oral submissions.
16. Mr. Davda further submitted that the departmental proceedings are held under Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which provides the detail procedure for conducting the same. The writ petition is blissfully silent on the violation of any statutory rules. In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 (10) SCC 84, while examining the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has held thus :-
"14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision.
15. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."
Thus, the Apex Court has held that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to he conscience of the court. It is observed that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. The facts of the present case do not reveal any procedural impropriety. The minor punishment, which is imposed on the petitioner does not shock the conscience of the Court. Hence, the penalty does not invite any intervention.
17. In view of the above submissions, he, therefore, prayed that there is a little scope for interference with the impugned orders and even if this Court may quash the said orders, the Court may remand the matter from the stage of disagreement of Disciplinary Authority.
18. Apart from above submissions, no other submissions were made by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda.
19. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I have noted the fact that the Enquiry Officer could not find any material against the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.4.2020 imposed penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect, is also not based on any factual foundation and despite that, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the punishment which would indicate sheer non-application of mind on his part.
20. Further, in similar set of facts, the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of D. G. Gamit v. State of Gujarat and another (Supra), observed in paragraph 10 as under :-
"10. Furthermore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the approach of the Disciplinary Authority can be said to be superfluous since the minor penalty of stoppage of one(1) increment without future effect, which was imposed upon the petitioner has an inconsiderate effect of economic loss of non-regularization of the suspension period surpassing the original minor penalty. This shows non-application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. The minor penalty which will have only the temporary effect of withholding of one increment will wipe out the actual pay and increments for the suspension period from
21.11.2001 and 17.12.2003. The petitioner will not be entitled to any actual pay or revision of pay and increments except the subsistence allowance, which is paid during the departmental proceedings."
Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined
21. Of course, in the above judgment, the facts were not identical, but still the observations made in paragraph 10 are very much applicable to the facts of the present case as according to this Court also, the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.4.2020 has not passed the said order on the basis of any factual foundation and, therefore, the said order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.4.2020 as well as order dated 22.2.2021 passed by the Revisional Authority by which penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect was modified in terms of withholding the increment for six months without future effect suffer from non-application of mind and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
22. Further, when the above two orders are held to be not sustainable and suffering from the vice of non-application of mind and when the Court deems it proper to quash the said orders, the consequential order dated 6.8.2020 of confirming the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 is also required to be quashed and set aside. I have reason to say so simply for the reason that the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sarjak Nileshbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat (Supra), observed in paragraph 6 as under :-
"6. Considering the circumstances of the present case, it is borne out that the only charge that the petitioner was faced with was that while he was working as Police Inspector, Special Operations Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined Group and because of the interception of a truck carrying liquor which was within the jurisdiction of his police station, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for being negligent or inefficient. The truck was seized admittedly on the basis of some secret information of the State Monitoring Cell on the basis of which an offence was registered under the Prohibition Act. Even according to the department it was a running offence and the truck had passed through various district and but for it being intercepted in Bhavnagar it could have travelled the jurisdiction of the petitioner's police station and therefore the petitioner cannot be singled out for having committed negligence or inefficiency. Even otherwise as held by the Apex Court in the case of J. Ahmed (supra), which the coordinate bench of this court has extensively referred to in Special Civil Application No. 5235 of 2019, the punishment of reprimand is misconceived."
23. Further, this Court in identical case in the case of Keval Markandrai Raval v. State of Gujarat and others (Supra), held in paragraph 21 to 25 as under :-
"21. In respect of five other punishments imposed upon the petitioner, all minor penalties when the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by way of separate petitions being Special Civil Application No.20020 of 2021 and allied matters, Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed in paragraphs No. 5.2 and 5.3 of the decision dated
24.2.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 20020 of 2021, reads as under :-
"5.2 Perusal of the order impugned herein together with the Appellate Authority's order would indicate that apart from being without any reasons and shifting the onus on the petitioner to prove otherwise, the order suffers from the vice of being without reasons.
5.3 Apparent it is from the report of the Dy.S P
that the petitioner was actively engaged in
discharge of duties at other places. The
communication dated 05.09.2013 cannot be pressed into service as it is vague and cannot be made applicable to any employee who is not present at the place where the alleged offence has been committed."
22. In the instant case also, on perusal of order passed by the higher authority who did not agree with the report of the preliminary inquiry, the Court finds that no reasons are assigned for disagreement. Further, the Dy.S.P. who carried out the preliminary investigation has specifically recorded that in view of the fact that the present petitioner was busy, investigating other case and could register another case of prohibition while he Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined was on patrolling, on facts also, there is no basis which can be said to have been weighed with respondent authority, on facts also, I don't see that the order of punishment is based on any factual finding as the petitioner was patrolling elsewhere.
23. Further, what is important is that after preliminary inquiry, a regular inquiry was also conducted and even in regular inquiry also the petitioner was exonerated and that finding was not accepted by the higher authority.
24. I have also considered the fact that the aforesaid decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court.
25. Further, when the aforesaid order was carried in appeal by the State Government by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.578 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 20020 of 2021 while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 22.10.2024, the Division Bench of this Court recorded the submissions in paragraphs No.3 and 4, the Division Bench recorded the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader as under :-
"2. The respondent, when he was posted as Police Inspector at Bhavnagar, was issued a show cause notice on 02.08.2019 alleging that he was negligent in performing his duty in tracing out the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined offences under the prohibition. The respondent accordingly filed a detailed reply and by the first order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 06.12.2019, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect was imposed. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority reduced such punishment of stoppage of one increment for six months without future effect. The same was assailed by the respondent in the captioned writ petition and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order of penalty and the appellate order.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that in fact as per the Government Resolution dated 12.09.2003, it is found that an officer in charge of a particular police station has remained negligent in tracing out the offence of prohibition, he would be subjected to department proceedings and accordingly a report was prepared by the Deputy Inspector General on 01.07.2019, which was supplied along with the show cause notice to the respondent. She has submitted that the report reveals that the respondent had remained negligent in tracing out the offence of prohibition, the impugned order of penalty initially was passed of withholding one increment for one year without future effect which was altered by the appellate authority to withholding of one increment Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined for six months without future effect."
Thereafter, this Court by reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Division Bench, observed in paragraph 26 as under :-
"26. In light of above submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the letters patent appeal while dismissing the letters patent appeal, the Division Bench of this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 as under :-
"6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. At the outset there cannot be any cavil on the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) on which the reliance is placed by the learned AGP. However, each case is required to be examined on its own fact. It is not in dispute that initially disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without future effect. The appellant carried the same in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority reduced the punishment from stoppage of one increment for six months without future effect.
7. The disciplinary authority had issued a show cause notice to the respondent, who was serving as Police Inspector relating to his negligence in not tracing out the offence of prohibition within the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined jurisdiction of the police station in which he was posted. The respondent gave a categorical reply to the show cause notice stating that he was on the same day itself, unearthed another crime involving prohibition and had caught country-made liquor worth Rs.45,560/-. After considering the explanation tendered by the respondent in his appeal as well as the show cause notice, the appellate authority i.e. the Section Officer of the State Government reduced the punishment from stoppage of one increment for six months without future effect. It is categorically held by the appellate authority that it is not found that the respondent has remained negligent in tracing out the offence of prohibition. However, simultaneously, it is held that he has remained ineffective in implementing the strict policy of prohibition of the State. In our considered opinion, the appellate authority should have confined to the alleged charge of misconduct and if the explanation or appeal of the respondent was accepted, there was no further requirement to reduce the punishment or alter the punishment from stoppage of one increment for one year without future effect to stoppage of one increment for six months without future effect.
8. The show cause notice only refers to the alleged misconduct of negligence in tracing out the incident of prohibition which was committed on Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined 02.03.2019. The appellate authority has categorically held that though such negligence is not proved, however the respondent was unable to implement the prohibition policy of the State Government. There is no charge in fact leveled against the respondent in the show cause notice dated 02.08.2019 stating that he has remained totally negligent in implementing the prohibition policy of the State Government.
9. We do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the present appeal stands rejected. The connected Civil Application accordingly stands rejected."
24. In view of the above referred decisions, it is crystal clear that in the instant case as well,when the negligence is attributed to the present petitioner, the same was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer as he has recorded that the charges against the present petitioner were not proved and, therefore, though the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the aforesaid findings, it did not give any reason which can be said to have been based on any factual foundation. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, based on the observations made by the above referred three judicial pronouncements, in the instant case also, it can be said that the respondent authority has attributed negligence to the present petitioner without there being any basis and, therefore, the order dated 30.4.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined as order dated 22.2.2021 passed by Revisional Authority imposing penalty of withholding of increment for the period of six month without future effect suffer from the vice of non-application of mind and, therefore, they are required to be quashed and set aside. When the above two orders are quashed, order dated 6.8.2020 whereby the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 was not regularized is also required to be quashed and set aside as a consequence of quashing of the orders imposing punishment.
25. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed. The order dated 30.4.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty for withholding increment for one year without future effect, impugned order dated 6.8.2020 of confirming the suspension period from 1.7.2019 to 30.4.2020 as well as impugned order dated 22.2.2021 imposing penalty of withholding of increment for the period of six month without future effect are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.
26. Before parting, I need to deal with the submission of learned AGP Mr. Davda that even if the impugned orders are quashed, the inquiry may be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for considering the issue denovo i.e. from the stage of disagreement by Disciplinary Authority.
Such request is not required to be entertained simply for the reason that when there is no material in the Enquiry Report against the present petitioner which can compel the Court to take a different view than the view taken by the Enquiry Officer when no charges is proved against the present petitioner and even at the Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11309/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 undefined time when the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer, could not assign any reason based on the factual foundation relegating the petitioner once again to go before the Disciplinary Authority would turn out to be a futile exercise and hence, I do not see any reason to remand the matter back to the stage where the Disciplinary Authority was required to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority in respect of Enquiry Officer's report. Resultantly, the aforesaid request is required to be rejected and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:36:59 IST 2026