Gujarat High Court
Abdul Gafar Dad Karim Raesh vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4932 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
ABDUL GAFAR DAD KARIM RAESH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB PARIKH(576) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. FORUM B. SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 -
STATE
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Forum B. Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondents-State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships be please to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at annexure a, passed by the present respondent no.4 and Your Lordships be please to further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and grant grant all all consequential benefit including pension to the petitioner Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined that may be available under the law;
(B) Your Lordships also be please to quashed and set aside the charge sheet dated 30/9/2010 issued by the present respondent no.2 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to settled legal proposition of law and also volatile of principle of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India; (C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be please to quashed and set aside the impugned order at annexure, passed by the present respondent no.4 and directed the respondent authorities to pay all consequential benefit including the pension to the petitioner in the interest of justice;
(D) Be please to grant such other and further relief/s which may be deems fit in the interest of justice."
3. BRIEF FACTS 3.1 The petitioner was appointed as an armed constable on 30/12/1973 and later on, was appointed as an unarmed constable. After rendering 34 years of service in the Police Department, when he was transferred to Bhavnagar on 06.03.2007, the petitioner did not join the service and remained absent from 06.03.2007 to 18.06.2007 for about 116 days, which was treated as leave without pay by respondent, thereafter again he remained absent from duty from 11.11.2007 to 02.07.2010.
3.2 Furthermore, several notices in between came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to report for duty, but Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined he appears to have not responded to it. Finally, he was served with the charge sheet, and upon conclusion of the inquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 2 - disciplinary authority, has dismissed him from service on the ground that he willfully remained absent from duty. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the departmental appeal, and thus, approached this Court by way of this petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
4.1 Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was suffering from severe illness and due to such reasons, he could not attend his services for a long time; otherwise, there was no ill intention on the part of the petitioner not to report for duty.
4.2 Mr. Parikh Kamal, learned advocate, would further submit that respondent - authorities have failed to notice that the petitioner had served the Police Department for about 34 years and as such, had a bloodless career; the punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. It is submitted that the petitioner was suffering from illness of rectal piles with bronchitis (u.i.), Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined which is confirmed from medical certificate available on record.
4.3 Mr. Parikh, learned advocate, would further submit that as per settled legal position of law, unless there is willful action on the part of the petitioner, no punishment can be imposed upon the delinquent for mere absence from duty. It is submitted that there is no willful absence from duty on the part of the petitioner, inasmuch as he was really sick and not able to perform his duty; rather, he had applied for earlier retirement from duty.
4.4 Mr. Parikh, learned advocate, would further submit that this Court can exercise its discretionary and extraordinary power in favour of the petitioner to upset the order of punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, and remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment, even assuming that misconduct is proved.
4.5 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined present writ petition.
4.6 To buttress his arguments, he would rely on the following judgments:
(i) Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another reported in 2012 (3) SCC 178.
(ii) Rajasthan Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs. Jai Raj
Singh Chauhan reported in (2011) 13 SCC 541.
(iii) Lajpat Rai Mehta Vs. Secretary to Govt.
of Punjab, Dept. of Irrigation of Power, Chandigarh reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 693.
(iv) State of Gujarat Vs. Pravinlal Kalyandas Rana reported in 2018 LawSuit (Guj) 853.
(v) Mohasinbhai A. Chuniya Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1301 of 2011 dated 16.06.2014.
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined 6.1 Per contra, Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP, would further vehemently oppose this petition, contending, inter alia, that there is no error, much less any error of law committed by the disciplinary authority while arriving at a conclusion that there was a willful absence on the part of the petitioner from duty. It is submitted that despite calling the petitioner several times during the aforesaid period of absence from duty, the petitioner never responded to such letters of the respondent -
authority.
6.2 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP, would further submit that there is nothing on record and as such no medical evidence brought on record by the petitioner during the course of the inquiry, whereby it can be confirmed that he was actually suffering from illness during such period. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority has categorically recorded that even after receipt of show cause notice, till date of final hearing to decide the misconduct of the petitioner, he was continuously remained absent from duty. This itself shows that there is willful default on the part of the petitioner not to serve the department.
Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined 6.3 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP, would further submit that medical certificates, which are produced on record are from the period between 22.11.2007 and 01.05.2008, whereas the petitioner was remained absent till issuance of charge-sheet, i.e., 03.09.2010, and thereafter till the hearing of the inquiry by disciplinary authority on 08.06.2011. It is a case of complete failure on the part of the petitioner not to serve the Police Department for quite a long time; rather, the petitioner has acted in an irresponsible manner unbecoming of a public servant. It is further submitted that had the petitioner been really suffering from any major illness as alleged, he could have easily get himself examined or treated at Bhavnagar Civil Hospital, but he has chosen not to avail of such medical benefits.
6.4 Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP, would further submit that the decisions cited by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as it is proved on record that the petitioner was without any justifiable reasons, remained absent from duty, for quite a long time, i.e., Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined 963 days. It is submitted that this Court should not exercise its discretionary and extraordinary power in favour of the petitioner by remanding the matter back to the respondent - authority as finding so recorded by the disciplinary- authority is neither erroneous nor perverse as alleged. It is submitted that scope of interference by this Court is very minimal in cases of punishment. 6.5 Making the above submissions, learned AGP would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. ANALYSIS:
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after analyzing the issue germane in the matter, it is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed unarmed constable and after rendering the police department for about 34 years, then after, he remained absent from duty, essentially from 06.03.2007 to 18.06.2007 and thereafter from 11.11.2007 to 02.07.2010. Even as noticed by the Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined disciplinary - authority in its impugned order of punishment that after issuance of final show cause notice and till the time of final hearing of the inquiry, the petitioner remained absent from his duty. This itself shows that the petitioner was remained absent from duty for quite a long time without any justification. Although, the initial absenteeism from service for a period 06.03.2007 to 18.06.2007 was condoned by respondent - authority by treating it as leave without pay. Yet, subsequent absence from duty is not only for a longer period but the conduct of the petitioner would show that he remained continuously absent from duty by not serving the department.
9. The reason of absence from duty submitted by the petitioner is that he was suffering from serious illness. It appears that during course of the inquiry and while submitting his final argument, the petitioner had not submitted any medical evidence to substantiate his claim to show that for all these years, he was in fact suffering from serious illness, which prevented him not to report for duty.
Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
10. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate, placed reliance on the medical certificate issued by the Sevak Mandal Charitable Hospital, Amreli for the period between 21.11.2007 and 01.05.2008. Nonetheless, he would not be in a position to confirm as to whether such medical certificates are part of the inquiry and or produced it before the disciplinary authority. The said certificates are not issued by any government hospital than its authenticity cannot be assumed.
11. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to show that after May, 2008, the petitioner was under
continuous treatment for alleged illness. Furthermore, the petitioner being a government servant/unarmed constable, must get free medical treatment from Civil Hospital, Amreli or Bhavnagar, as the case may be, then the petitioner could have easily brought on record his actual physical condition by getting medical certificate from the RMO of the Civil Hospital concerned. No such evidence was ever brought before the disciplinary - authority and/or before this Court.
12. I have minutely gone through the impugned order Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined passed by the disciplinary authority, wherein while recording specific finding that apart from the aforesaid period of absence from duty, after 27.10.2010 till the hearing of show cause notice, i.e., 08.06.2011, the petitioner was remained absent from duty, that too without any production of medical certificates. This shows total carelessness, negligence and lack of devotion to duty by a constable, who is otherwise requires to serve the Police Department. As per Section 28(1) of Gujarat Police Act, 1951, every police officer not on leave or under suspension shall for all purposes be deemed to be always on duty. The petitioner has acted against the spirit of the said Act and had not made himself available for duty. Since the petitioner has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has not been able to substantiate his medical illness on record, this Court has no reason to depart from the view taken by the disciplinary - authority, even though the petitioner felt aggrieved by the quantum of punishment, i.e., dismissal.
13. Ms. Sukhadwala, learned AGP, is correct in her submission that none of the decisions cited by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, are applicable Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined to the facts of the present case. I would like to deal with the decisions so cited by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner, as follows:
13.1 In the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), it has been held that unless the disciplinary authority proves that absence from duty is willful, in absence of such finding, mere absence from duty will not amount to misconduct. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the disciplinary authority has specifically arrived at the conclusion that it is proved that the petitioner, without informing his superior, willfully remained absent from duty, for more than three years and currently also, remained absent from duty. In those circumstances, the order of dismissal was passed. The ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13.2 In the case of Jai Raj Singh Chauhan (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather noticed that absence from duty without taking prior permission from competent authority is bound to have serious adverse impact on administration, and in such circumstances, " if no Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined disciplinary action is taken, the disease of indiscipline would have spread like an epidemic ". In such circumstances, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that gravity of misconduct committed by the respondent acquired serious dimension by his subsequent conduct of remaining absent from duty for more than a year and six months after expiry of sanctioned leave. As the High Court itself has substituted the quantum of punishment, such decision was interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court by holding that High Court ought to have remanded the matter back to the authority. Like in the present case also, the petitioner remained absent from duty subsequently without informing to his superior for long time, whereby petitioner had to face the departmental inquiry. According to me, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not be helpful to the case of the petitioner any further, instead counterproductive.
13.3 Likewise, in the case of Lajpat Rai Mehta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that on granting the benefit of pension by Civil Court, even though the appellant concerned was absent from duty, he Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined is not held entitled to receive other retirement benefits.
The issue germane in the matter is not similar as before the Apex Court in the said decision, inasmuch as no such order ever passed by the Civil Court or any Court in favour of the petitioner.
13.4 In the case of Pravinlal Kalyandas Rana (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of Rule 16 of Gujarat Civil Services (Leaves) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2002"), whereby in case of a government employee, if he has remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of one year from the date of expiry of sanctioned leave or permission; or if he is absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years, such government employee will be treated as resigned from service. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred to Bhavnagar and required to join the office of respondent No. 2 on 06.03.2007, but he did not report for duty, rather remained absent from duty for period between 06.03.2007 and 18.06.2007 and as such, it was treated as leave without pay by respondent - authority. Thereafter, without getting any sanction of leave, the petitioner was Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined remained absent from duty from 11.11.2007 to 02.07.2010, as aforesaid, thus, in view of said facts, petitioner's case would not fall in any of the contingencies provided in sub-section 2 of Rule 16 of Rules, 2002. Thus, this decision is also not helpful to the petitioner.
13.5 Lastly, in the case of Mohasinbhai A. Chuniya (supra), the period of absenteeism was hardly 74 days and as recorded in the order that power to initiate the inquiry was after acceptance of proposal from delinquent for voluntary retirement. In aforesaid factual background of that case, the order of dismissal from service is substituted by imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. Such is not the case in hand, inasmuch as till the date of initiation of the inquiry, i.e., issuance of charge sheet, the petitioner had never applied for voluntary retirement due to his alleged illness.
14. In view of the aforesaid, I am not at all impressed by any submissions of Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for petitioner. There is neither any infirmity, irregularity, illegality nor finding of guilt of the Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4932/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined petitioner recorded by the disciplinary authority found to be erroneous or perverse. Thus, the impugned order of punishment confirmed by the appellate authority does not require any interference by this Court in its limited jurisdiction of judicial review.
CONCLUSION:
15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the present petition lacks merit and is thereby liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.
16. Consequently, Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:16:24 IST 2026