Gujarat High Court
Sarjak Nileshbhai Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 10 March, 2022
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/14473/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14473 of 2021
==========================================================
SARJAK NILESHBHAI BAROT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 10/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the penalty order dated 15.04.2021 by which the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of reprimand.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 01.09.2020. According to the charge-sheet, while the petitioner was working as Police Inspector, Special Operations Group and In-charge of the Local Crime Branch, Bhavnagar, the Monitoring Cell of the State had intercepted and apprehended a container containing Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) worth Rs.24,60,900/-. The container was apprehend on the basis of a secret information. An FIR was lodged with the Ghogha Police Station as Prohibition C.R. No. III - 247 of 2019 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2), 116(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the department was that though the petitioner was Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 11 21:38:23 IST 2022 C/SCA/14473/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022 present in the district of Bhavnagar he failed to obtain information and detect the offence. That was taken to be gross negligence on the part of the petitioner towards implementing the policy of prohibition. On receipt of charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his defence on 18.09.2020. A departmental inquiry was initiated and on the basis of the evidence before the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2021 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why based on the Inquiry Officer's report a penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect be not imposed. The Inquiry Officer held the charges as partly proved. The petitioner filed response to the show-cause notice on 31.03.2021. Based on the response filed by the petitioner the impugned order of penalty imposing punishment of reprimand was imposed on the petitioner. On an appeal being filed the same was returned on the ground that against the order of reprimand there is no provision of appeal. Aggrieved by the order therefore the present petition is preferred.
4. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is evident from the fact of the order of penalty that the petitioner's service record was otherwise clean and unblemished inasmuch as he had detected 15 cases of prohibition and received 200 prizes. Merely because the State Monitoring Cell had intercepted and detected an offence which happened to be within the jurisdiction of the police station of the petitioner, he could not have been singled out inasmuch as it was clear from the fact that the truck in fact had originated from Haryana and entered the state of Gujarat and it travelled through various districts and was intercepted midway where it was within the jurisdiction in Bhavnagar.
Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 11 21:38:23 IST 2022C/SCA/14473/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022 4.1 Mr. Vyas would further submit that no misconduct can be
attributed to the petitioner for a solitary instance of not detecting an offence and the same cannot be held to be inefficiency and failure to maintain integrity. Reliance is placed on a decision of this court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5235 of 2019 dated 03.11.2020 wherein in context of offences in the charge-sheet identical to the present offence wherein the petitioner therein was imposed a penalty of reprimand, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 the court held that merely because the contraband was passing through the jurisdiction of the petitioner it cannot be held that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and had not taken proper care to implement the Act and that it is difficult to believe that it would be labelled as lack of efficiency. The coordinate bench of this court quashed and set aside the order of penalty and allowed the petition.
5. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for the State relying on the affidavit-in-reply filed would submit that as a result of the information received by the State Monitoring Cell, Gandhinagar, IMFL worth Rs.24,69,000/- was intercepted. An offence under the Prohibition Act was lodged. Charge-sheet was issued. Inquiry was held and in accordance with the principles of natural justice the inquiry officer found the charge to be partly proved. The punishment of reprimand is not serious enough to warrant interjection in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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 Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 11 21:38:23 IST 2022 C/SCA/14473/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022 was working as Police Inspector, Special Operations 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.
7. Accordingly, the order of penalty dated 15.04.2021 is quashed and set aside. The same shall be treated as non existent for the benefits if any that the petitioner is entitled to during his service tenure henceforth. Petition is allowed accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 11 21:38:23 IST 2022