Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Dinubhai Vyas S/O Dinubhai ... vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5017 of 2020
==========================================================
BHARATKUMAR DINUBHAI VYAS S/O DINUBHAI VYAS
Versus
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following main prayer.
" 8A. issue a rate of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature certiorari or any other writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned (i) Order No.KAPS/Admin/Per/907/99-05, dated 19.01.1999 (at Annexure-1 hereto) and also (ii) Order No.NPC/CO/ED/(O)/BDV/99/220, dated 30.10.1999 (at Annexure-2 hereto), (iii) Communication No.KAPS/Admn- Per/06/07/907/2002/196, dated 11.07.2002 (at Annexure-3 hereto), insofar as it seeks to award a different and higher penalty against the petitioner hearing in total violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Raj Pal Singh, thereby violating the Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India in Articles 12, 14 and 16;
(B) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned (i) Communication No.KAPS/Admn-Per/06/07/907/2002/196, dated 11.07.2002 (at Annexure-3 hereto), also (ii) the recent Communication bearing No.KAPS/HR/Estt/6/7/2017-
428, dated 16.11.2017 (at Annexure-4 hereto), holding and declaring the same to be ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory on the part of the respondent authorities in NPCIL;
(C) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, commanding / directing the respondents herein to forthwith further modify and reduce the originally modified penalty of reduction to lower grade of Tradesman 'B' in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-450/- for a period of 5 years, imposed on the petitioner herein by means of the impugned documents at Annexure-1 & 2 hereto, by award of 'reduction of pay to a lower stage in the very scale of Rs.4000-6000/- for a period of 3 years' as has been done in the case of the aforesaid co-delinquent Shri R.C. Ashara by the Appellate Authority on 23.10.1998 followed by the confirmation of the same by the Revisional Authority on 30.10.1999, with all consequential benefits (including the pay revision, promotion, arrears of salary Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined arising therefrom etc.) which the petitioner herein is otherwise entitled to as a sequel to the aforesaid further modification of the originally modified penalty;"
2. Heard learned advocates.
3.1 Learned advocate Ms. Himanshi R. Balodi for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority while imposing the reduced penalty vide order dated 17.01.1999 has meted out a discriminatory treatment against the petitioner vis-a-vis the reduced penalty which the very same appellate authority had awarded to the co-delinquent. She has further submitted that though the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the co-delinquent are identical and similar and both of them have candidly admitted their guilt, the concerned authority ought to have awarded the same punishment to the petitioner like the co-delinquent. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh V Raj Pal Singh reported in 2002 (4) AWC 2946 SC. She has also submitted that such a stand of the respondent authority is untenable in law as the reasons assigned for the refusal to refer to the petitioners case to CMD are contrary to the facts and law. She has also submitted that it is not legal and valid for the respondent authorities to take a stand that has no sufficient and justified reasons / merits were Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined found in the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2017 for forwarding of the same to the CMD. She has submitted that there is a genuine and bona fide delay in approaching this Court by the petitioner and is not a deliberate, willful or wanton or is actuated by any malafide motive on the part of the petitioner. She is submitted that it was only very recently that the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Pal Singh (supra). She has submitted that the case of the petitioner is continuing course of action every month and therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R. Gupta versus Union of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 669. 3.2 She has, in support of her submissions, also relied upon the decisions of the : (i) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India V Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 and (ii) Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashmira Arunkumar Thakkar versus Union of India recorded on Special Civil Application No.17189 of 2017 dated 20.01.2022.
3.3 She has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 4.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Gadhia for the respondent has vehemently opposed this petition. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent authorities and has submitted that the respondent authorities have rightly considered the case of the petitioner. He has submitted that considering the gravity of charges level against the petitioner, the penalty is very lenient and not proportionate to the charges; and that the petitioner himself has admitted the charges levelled against him; and that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to present his case at every stage of the proceedings, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been complied with by the respondent authorities; and that it is for the domestic Tribunal to decide the appropriate punishment which has been done and reduced on appeal; and that the petitioner is trying to draw negative equality that too after 20 years and after getting promotions regularly also; and that the petitioner has slept over their rights for almost two decades, therefore, he cannot claim equality with others. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa versus Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, more particularly para : 54 thereof and has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 4.2 He has submitted that the petitioner was a Secretary of the KAPP Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited and had siphoned a large amount from the Credit Society during the period from 1992 to 1997; and that there were 46 charges of misappropriation on the petitioner; and that after issuing charge sheet, the petitioner voluntarily gave a confession letter and accepted all the charges unconditionally, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in this petition. At this stage, he has submitted that the petitioner approached disciplinary authority; thereafter appellate authority and thereafter reviewing authority and all the authorities have rightly passed the appropriate orders.
4.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus Director General, SSB reported in (2022) 20 SCC 608 and has submitted that the present petition may be dismissed.
5.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. From the record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Tradesman 'B' in the year 1988 with the respondent authorities. Thereafter he was promoted, redesignated Tradesman 'C' in the year 1997 and thereafter in Tradesman 'D', the petitioner came to be placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental disciplinary inquiry proceedings along with one Mr.R.C. Ashara, the charges levelled against the petitioner and Mr.R.C. Ashara are for misappropriation of amount from the Credit Society during the period from 1992 to 1997, there were 46 charges of misappropriation, the petitioner was holding the post of Secretary in that Credit Society, the another person was holding post of Treasurer of the very Credit Society, both were suspended by the respondent authorities. 5.2 Further, the petitioner has submitted his written statement of defence and admitted his guilt and the co- delinquent has also admitted his guilt. In view of the admission of the petitioner, the respondent authorities dismissed the petitioner from service and the co-delinquent was also dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the co-delinquent has also preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner start from here that the Appellate Authority has imposed penalty of reduction of pay to the lower stage of Rs.4500/- for a period Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined of three years in lieu of dismissal in the case of co- delinquent, whereas the Appellate Authority has passed penalty order in the case of petitioner to reduction to lower grade of Tradesmen 'B' in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050- 75-3950-80-4500 for a period of five years with a further direction that until he is found fit after five years from the date of the order to be restored to the grade of Tradesman 'D' in lieu of dismissal.
5.3 Both the persons were reinstated in service as per the order of the Appellate Authority and they have resumed their duties. By a efflux of time, the petitioner got various promotions and ultimately, after reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired from the services during the pendency of this petition. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached the the review committee for reconsideration of his case and the review committee has in turn operate the decision of the appellate authority. 5.4 By way of this petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that though the petitioner and the co-delinquent Mr.Ashara, both were facing almost similar charges and punishment of dismissal, the Appellate Authority has passed discriminatory order and thereby different punishment were awarded. It is noted that the petitioner has not challenged Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the said so-called discriminatory order of the Appellate Authority which was of the year 1999 and in turn, the Reviewing Authority's order which was passed of the year 2002, before this Court after about 18 years of delay. The petitioner has challenged those orders before this Court in this petition that too without explaining the delay and without giving sufficient cause for the said delay. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5.5 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa and Another versus Mamta Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, more particularly para : 54 thereof, which reads as under.
"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by teh Court in a similary cas as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time."
5.6 Additionally the petitioner was a Secretary of the Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined KAPP Employees' Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited and had siphoned of a large amount from the Credit Society during the period of about five years i.e. from the year 1992 to 1997. There were around 46 charges of misappropriation upon the petitioner. The petitioner has voluntarily gave a confession letter and accepted all the charges unconditionally before the concerned authority and therefore considering the gravity of the charges of misappropriation of huge amount, the disciplinary authority has passed the dismissal order. However, the Appellate Authority has taken humanitarian and social grounds, reinstated the petitioner with lessor punishment. 5.7 Further, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority and all the authorities have, after considering the submissions as well as documents produced by the petitioner, passed the appropriate orders. Further, the petitioner is trying to draw negative equality, that too after about 20 years and also that too after getting various promotions, which cannot be permitted. The petitioner has committed misappropriation of amount of the Credit Society where he was a Secretary, accepted his guilt unconditionally, dismissal order was passed on that basis by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Authority has reduced the punishment and reinstated the petitioner in service, the petitioner approached the Reviewing Authority thereafter and now raised grievance regarding the order passed by the Appellate Authority of lessor punishment in lieu of dismissal at this belated stage i.e. after about 18 years, is not permissible at all. As quoted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, time and again, held that you can cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. In the present case, it is a delay of two decades, this petition therefore needs to be rejected.
5.8 It is fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus Director General, SSB reported in (2022) 20 SCC 608, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a laser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee hire punishment is warranted and inflicted by disciplinary authority after due application of mind and therefore there cannot be any negative discrimination.
Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5017/2020 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
6. In view of above, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:07 IST 2025