C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Reserved On : 11/02/2026

Pronounced On : 18/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8490 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

=============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

√

=============================================

F H SHAIKH

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MS PRACHI UPADHYAY FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the

Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3

=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

CAV JUDGMENT

1.Heard Ms.Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate for the

petitioner and Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned AGP appearing for

the Respondent-State.

1.1With the consent of the learned advocates for the

respective parties, the present petition is taken up for

hearing.

Page 1 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

2.The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) quash and set aside the order dated 9.7.2010, Annexure-A to this

petition, and

(B) quash and set aside the order dated 16.6.1999 Annexure-B to this

petition, and

(C) quash and set aside the decision of the Government as contained

in the notice dated 31.12.1998 Annexure-C to this petition, and

(D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable

Court may be pleased to grant the mandatory injunction against the

further implementation and operation of the impugned orders dated

9.7.2010 and 16.6.1999, and/ or

(E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable

Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from taking

into consideration the decision of the Government as contained in the

communication dated 31.12.1998 or orders dated 9.7.2010 and

16.6.1999 as an adversity for any purpose, including for the purpose of

promotion on the post of Deputy Director and/or Joint Director, and

(F) award the exemplary cost of this petition, and”

SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE:

3.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had

initially joined service on 10/05/1982, as a Class-II officer

under the administrative control of the Director of

Employment and Training, Gujarat State. The appointment of

the petitioner was as Principal (Class-II). The next higher post

in the said hierarchy is Assistant Director (Training) (Class-I).

The said post can be filled in by promotion as well as direct

recruitment.

3.1The Gujarat Public Service Commission had issued an

advertisement in the year 1985 inviting applications for direct

Page 2 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

recruitment to the said post. The petitioner appears to have

applied pursuant to the advertisement and got selected as his

name was kept at serial No.1 in the select list.

3.2The other selected candidates were appointed on

25/02/1987, but the petitioner was not appointed on the said

date. Upon inquiry, the reason made known to the petitioner

was a proposed inquiry (the subject matter of this petition) to

be initiated against the petitioner. At that time, due to the

intervention of this Court, the petitioner was appointed to the

said post.

3.3The next promotional post for the cadre of Assistant

Director (Training) is Deputy Director (Training). The same

was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he was

subjected to a departmental inquiry upon the issuance of a

charge-sheet on 03/08/1990. Surprisingly, on 12/09/1994, the

said charge-sheet came to be withdrawn by the respondent;

on even date, the petitioner was served with a fresh charge-

sheet containing as many as 16 charges.

3.4Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide

his report dated 31/10/1998, exonerated the petitioner from

all charges. Along with the petitioner, there were three other

persons of the department concerned where the petitioner

was serving were also charge-sheeted. It appears that all of

them were also exonerated from the charges.

3.5The disciplinary authority had a disagreement with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer recorded in relation to Charge

Page 3 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

Nos.2, 3, 4 and 15. So, vide its show-cause notice dated

31/12/1998, the respondent called upon the petitioner to

submit his reply. After receipt of the reply and without serving

another show-cause notice, rejected the petitioner’s reply. The

petitioner was served with the impugned order of punishment

dated 16/06/1999. The respondent has concluded that Charge

Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 15 stand proved against the petitioner.

Accordingly, an order was passed whereby a penalty of

stoppage of one increment with future effect has been

imposed upon the petitioner.

3.6The petitioner appears to have filed an application to

review the said decision before the respondent concerned, but

the same was turned down by a communication dated

05/01/2000. Thereafter, again on 13/03/2000, the petitioner

requested to respondent No.2 to reconsider his penalty.

3.7The record suggests that the case of the petitioner was

placed before the highest authority of the State, i.e., the Chief

Minister. It appears from the file noting that the authority

concerned, i.e., the Minister of the concerned department and

the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat on 10/08/2001 and

13/08/2001, respectively, opined that the report of the Inquiry

Officer be accepted and the petitioner be declared

exonerated. Yet, no formal order was passed by the

department concerned and as such, their decision remained in

the file as it was never communicated to the petitioner.

Page 4 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

3.8Thereafter, due to the directions issued by this Court,

the respondent appears to have passed the impugned order

dated 09/07/2010 whereby it has maintained the punishment

imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the

aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

4.Ms.Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner has

assiduously argued and made the following submissions:

4.1It is a clear case of victimization as the petitioner was

wrongly held guilty for the charges which were never proved

during the course of the inquiry. In fact, he was served with

the chargesheet on 03/08/1990 only with a view to see that he

should not get promotion to the next higher post, i.e., Deputy

Director (Training). Having found that it was defective in

nature, after more than four years from the issuance of such

charge-sheet, it came to be withdrawn on 12/09/1994.

4.2A fresh charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on

12/09/1994, but there was no progress in the inquiry and due

to the intervention of this Court vide its order dated

16/09/1998 passed in Special Civil Application No.5612 of

1998, the final inquiry was completed as the Inquiry Officer

had issued his report on 31/10/1998. None of the charges

leveled against the petitioner have been proved in the inquiry

as categorically recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report.

Nonetheless, all throughout, the petitioner was deprived to

get next higher promotion.

Page 5 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

4.3It is a settled position of law that when the Inquiry

Officer has recorded a specific finding that charges are not

proved against the delinquent (the petitioner herein), while

issuing a show-cause notice and disagreeing with the findings

of the Inquiry Officer on any of the charges leveled against the

delinquent, the disciplinary authority must assign its reasons

for disagreement. In the present case, no such reasons were

assigned by the disciplinary authority when it issued the

show-cause notice to the petitioner on 31/12/1998.

4.4The petitioner has submitted his response/reply to the

said show-cause notice. Once the disciplinary authority was

not accepting the reply of the petitioner and maintained its

disagreement, before imposing any penalty, it was required to

issue a second show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was

not issued in the present case.

4.5The impugned order of penalty dated 16/06/1999 is a

non-speaking order, inasmuch as no reasons were assigned by

the disciplinary authority regarding its disagreement with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer and also not dealt with the reply

of the petitioner to the show-cause notice. As per the settled

position of law, any order passed by a disciplinary authority-

administrative officer must be a speaking order.

4.6 The impugned order of review dated 09/07/2010 passed by

the respondent authority while exercising its power under

Rule 24 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1971"),

Page 6 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

could not have discarded the file noting and approval granted

by the higher officials of the State. The reason for discarding

it is also not attributed to any act of the petitioner, inasmuch

as it is not so far proved that any manipulation in the office

note was done by the petitioner. Once the Hon’ble Minister

and Hon’ble Chief Minister, respectively, had taken a decision

to declare the petitioner be exonerated of the charges by

accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, it was not open for

their successors to take any contrary decision.

4.7The charges leveled against the petitioner, being Charge

Nos.2 to 4 were never proved by the Presenting Officer,

inasmuch as though the purchases of different items were of

Rs.35,224/- etc., but the same were not only at the instance of

the petitioner but it was a collective decision of the Purchase

Committee to purchase the items. As per the Government

Resolution dated 30/09/1982 of the Industries and Mines

Department of the State of Gujarat, to purchase item up to

Rs.5,000/-, there was no need to float a public tender. It is

undisputed on record that all items purchased were for less

than Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, charge Nos. 2 to 4 have not been

proved. So far as charge No. 15 is concerned, apart from the

said resolution, the purchase of the fan was not at a higher

cost than the market cost which was suggested by the

disciplinary authority in the charge, as the rate suggested was

without the addition of taxes, whereas the purchase price

includes taxes. Accordingly, none of the charges leveled

against the petitioner stand proved in the inquiry.

Page 7 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

4.8 It is not in dispute that other members of the Purchase

Committee (3 in number), though charge-sheeted, were

exonerated by the Inquiry Officer and their exoneration was

accepted by the respondent. This shows clear discrimination

and different treatment being meted out to the petitioner by

the respondent; rather, the petitioner was made a scapegoat.

4.9 The charges leveled against the petitioner are of alleged

misconduct for a period between April, 1982 and October,

1985, whereas the first charge-sheet was issued in the year

1990 and after its withdrawal, the second one was issued on

12/09/1994. There was a gross delay on the part of the

respondent authority to initiate the inquiry against the

petitioner and due to the long pendency of the inquiry and as

such final decision taken not to disturb the order of penalty in

the year 2010, this Court should exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction by holding that there is a delay in initiation and

completion of the inquiry and on such ground also, it may be

quashed.

4.10The impugned order of penalty dated 16/6/1999 has also

travelled beyond the charges leveled against the petitioner,

inasmuch as there was no charge of financial irregularity

mentioned in the charge sheet served upon the petitioner.

Whereas, while passing the impugned order, the disciplinary

authority arrived at a conclusion that by purchasing item

beyond its power, the petitioner has committed a serious

financial irregularity. Such a finding is perverse and

erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside.

Page 8 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

4.11To buttress her argument, Ms.Upadhyay, learned

advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following

judgments:

(i)Judgment dated 26/06/2024 passed by Division

Bench of this Court in case of Ea Singh (Edwin Annett

Singh) and others vs. State of Gujarat, being Letters Patent

Appeal No.934 of 2015.

(ii)Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran – 2015

(2) SCC 610.

(iii)Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs.

Masood Ahmed Khan and others – 2010 (9) SCC 496.

(iv) Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Girish

Chandra Sarma – (2007) 7 SCC 206.

(v)State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan – 1998

(4) SCC 154.

4.12 Making the above submissions, Ms.Upadhyay, learned

advocate for the petitioner would pray to this Court to allow

the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

5.Per Contra, Mr. Rami, learned AGP, has vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for

the petitioner, as well as prayers made in this petition, by

making the following submissions:

5.1The service record of the petitioner is not blot-less, as he

has tried to portray before this Court. Prior to the initiation of

the inquiry or thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to other

disciplinary proceedings which are enumerated and their

Page 9 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

details given in para 4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the

State.

5.2 The Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 15 were as such proved

against the petitioner; the Inquiry Officer has committed an

error by wrongly placing reliance upon the Resolution dated

30/09/1982 and erroneously observed that as the purchase of

each item was less than Rs.5,000/-, the charges are not

proved against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer has

completely misconstrued himself by equating the “item” with

“the number of pieces”. For instance, in charge No.2, there

was a purchase of eight workbenches by the petitioner

totaling Rs.35,000/- and the cost of each workbench was

Rs.4,375/-. The item in this case would be the ‘workbench’

and not ‘8 workbenches’, as tried to be canvassed by the

petitioner.

5.3The petitioner was the superior officer having full

control, then merely because it was decided by the Purchase

Committee to purchase the different items by not following

the due process, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from his

misconduct by citing instances of not imposing any penalty

upon other committee members.

5.4 The reasons for disagreement were also annexed to the

show-cause notice dated 31/12/1998, issued by the

respondent. The case of the petitioner was considered

threadbare by the disciplinary authority; not being satisfied

with his explanation, it passed the impugned order of penalty,

Page 10 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

as the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in respect of

charge Nos.2, 3, 4 and 15. The petitioner cannot be allowed to

place reliance upon the file notings, or any decision taken by

the Minister/Chief Minister, as the case may be, as the same

never saw the light of day. It is a settled position of law that

unless a decision is passed and communicated to the person

concerned by the State, as per Article 166(2) of the

Constitution of India, no right accrues in favour of the

petitioner merely because a decision remains on the file.

5.5The record indicates deliberate tampering with the file

notings, where certain words have been obliterated by using

whitener. In fact, considering the seriousness of the issue, at

the relevant point of time, the matter was also referred to CID

Crime to investigate such manipulations. After taking

cognizance of the entire set of facts, the competent authority

vides its impugned order dated 09/07/2010, rejected the

request of the petitioner to again review its decision. Even

prior thereto, the decision of the State was also

communicated to the petitioner by communication dated

05/01/2000 and then after, there was no reason for the

petitioner to again request the said authority to review its

decision by making a written representation dated

13/03/2000.

5.6The allegations of delay and laches in the initiation and

conclusion of the inquiry are unsustainable. At the relevant

point of time, the petitioner ought to have raised such issues,

but it appears that he was satisfied with the directions issued

Page 11 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

by this Court vide its order dated 16/09/1998 passed in

Special Civil Application No.5612 of 1998, whereby this Court

directed the disciplinary authority to complete the inquiry on

or before 31/10/1998. The report of the Inquiry Officer was

also prepared on 30/10/1998 and within a reasonable time,

the order of penalty was also imposed by the respondent vide

its order dated 16/06/1999. The scope of judicial review to

interfere in the order of disciplinary proceedings or

punishment, as the case may be, by this Court is very limited.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, no

case is made out by the petitioner for interference by this

Court.

5.7Mr.Rami, learned AGP, has relied on the following

judgments in support of arguments:

(i)Mahadeo vs. Sovan Devi – 2023 (10) SCC 807.

(ii)Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran – 2015

(2) SCC 610.

(iii)State of U.P. & Anr. v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Anr.

– 2009 (8) SCC 310.

5.8By making the above submissions, Mr.Rami, learned

AGP would urge this Court to dismiss the present petition.

6.No other and further submissions have been made by

learned advocates for the respective parties.

ANALYSIS :

7.Having heard the learned advocates for the respective

parties and after going through their pleadings and

Page 12 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

documents, the following would emerge:

7.1The petitioner was serving as a Class-I officer, i.e.,

Assistant Director (Training), subjected to a charge sheet

issued on 3/8/1990 which came to be withdrawn by the

respondent on 12/9/1994. Again, he was served with another

charge sheet on 12/9/1994 containing total 16 charges. Upon

conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, vide its report

dated 30/10/1998, exonerated the petitioner from all charges.

The disciplinary authority was in disagreement with the

findings so far as charges Nos.2, 3, 4 and 15 are concerned.

Consequently, vide its show-cause notice dated 31/12/1998,

by citing reasons of disagreement, it called upon the

petitioner to submit his response. The petitioner appears to

have submitted his response vide his reply dated 12/1/1999.

Without intimating the petitioner of the non-acceptance of his

reply and without recording the reasons for disagreement

with the same, the respondent passed the impugned order of

penalty dated 16/6/1999, imposing a penalty of stoppage of

one increment with future effect. It is not in dispute that such

penalty is considered to be a major penalty which would affect

the prospects of the petitioner to claim the next promotion to

the post of Deputy Director (Training).

7.2The petitioner appears to have approached respondent

No.2 by way of a request to review the impugned decision,

which was initially not entertained by the State, as can be

seen from the communication dated 5/1/2000. Nonetheless,

upon further request of the petitioner to review such decision,

Page 13 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

the Minister concerned and the Chief Minister, vide decisions

dated 10/7/2001 and 13/8/2001, agreed that the report of the

Inquiry Officer be accepted and the petitioner be declared

exonerated from the charges. No formal order in this regard

was passed by the department, rather vide its impugned order

09/07/2010, the respondent – State concurred with the order

of penalty imposed upon the petitioner.

8.It is true that the decision taken by the highest officials

of the State never saw the light of day, inasmuch as such

decision was not communicated by the department concerned

to the petitioner or otherwise. The reason for the non-

communication of the said decision by the department

concerned at the relevant point of time was that at certain

places in the department note, whitener was used to

obliterate certain words in the file notings including the area

where the Chief Minister had signed. The CID Crime was also

involved to investigate such irregularity in the department

note, but nothing fruitful came out, neither against the

petitioner nor any other person, as the case may be.

8.1This Court has called upon Ms.Upadhyay, learned

advocate for the petitioner, to show the true copy of the

Annexure-L, i.e., page Nos.151 and 152 of this petition

(relevant file noting). The same was provided for the perusal

of this Court by the learned advocate for the petitioner and on

verification, the same is found to be the same as available at

page No.151 and 152. Apropos to the same, when this Court

has called upon Mr.Rami, learned AGP, to provide the original

Page 14 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

file noting and approval granted by the State officials

(Minister/Chief Minister), the learned AGP has also provided

the same. The file noting reveals that whitener was applied

over the signature of the then Chief Minister.

8.2From the above, it can be very well said that when the

petitioner was supplied a copy of the file noting containing the

signatures of the Minister and Chief Minister under the RTI,

thereafter only it is possible that someone has applied

whitener. Prima facie, no adverse inference can be drawn at

least against the petitioner for such a serious act when the

decision taken as such was in his favor. Mr. Rami, learned

AGP, was not in a position to substantiate the said

discrepancy; rather he conveyed to this Court upon

instruction that the CID Crime was also unable to find out the

real culprit behind such act.

8.3This Court is perturbed with the aforesaid facts, as it

shows how vulnerable an important office file of the

department concerned can be. It seems that anyone can

manipulate the file noting as per his sweet will. This Court

was seriously thinking to issue a direction to the respondent -

State to hold an inquiry against the erring officials of the

department concerned and, if so advised, register a criminal

complaint against the officials in whose possession the file

containing the said noting was kept. Mr.Rami, learned AGP,

has requested this Court not to pass such a direction as the

concerned official has already retired from service. At the

same time, Mr. Rami has assured this Court that the feelings

Page 15 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

of this Court regarding the aforesaid act would be conveyed to

the competent authority of the respondent – State that

henceforth, it may take due care to safeguard and secure such

type of file. Hence, at this stage, I would not like to go further

deep into the matter.

8.4Be that as it may, as per the settled position of law,

unless the decision of the State turns out in the form of an

order and the same will be communicated to the concerned

person, mere file noting or a decision taken on file would have

no effect. [See: Mahadeo (supra)]. Thus, despite the said

decision taken by the highest authority of State, since no

order has been passed and communicated to the petitioner by

the respondent authority, and such decision never saw the

light of day, in that view of the matter, such decision cannot

be relied upon by the petitioner.

8.5 At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the

aforesaid fact that the decision was in taken favor of the

petitioner by the Chief Minister and Minister concerned in the

year 2001 and for reasons best known to the department

concerned, no formal order was either passed and

communicated to the petitioner. The said act of respondent

concerned bolsters the argument of the petitioner that he was

victimized during the entire episode of the inquiry.

9. So far as the aspect of delay in initiating the inquiry and

its conclusion is concerned, it is true that the charge leveled

against the petitioner was for alleged misconduct between

Page 16 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

April, 1982 and October, 1985 and he was subject to the first

charge sheet in the year 1990 and upon its withdrawal, a

fresh charge sheet in the year 1994. At the same time, the

petitioner appears to have approached this Court by way of

Special Civil Application No.5612 of 1998 wherein this Court,

vide its order dated 16/9/1998, only directed the Inquiry

Officer to conclude the inquiry on or before 31/10/1998. The

Inquiry Officer issued his report on 30/10/1998, within time

granted by this Court; consequently, the respondent

concerned, vide its impugned order dated 16/6/1999, imposed

a penalty upon the petitioner. Upon passing of the order

punishment, the inquiry stand concluded. Even the first

review application of the petitioner was rejected by the State

vide communication dated 05/01/2000. It is true that so-called

second review application of the petitioner remained pending

for long time would not be ground to quash the disciplinary

proceeding (inquiry), when first one rejected within

reasonable time. Accordingly, after taking note of the said

facts and the said order passed by this Court, I am of the view

that there was no case made out by the petitioner that, due to

delay, the inquiry was not concluded within a reasonable time

which prejudiced his future service prospects.

10. Now adverting to the issue of disagreement of the

disciplinary authority as regards charges Nos.2, 3, 4 and 15

are concerned, the reading of the show-cause notice dated

31/12/1998 as such does not state any reason for

disagreement, which is sine-qua-non. Of course, the note

detailing the reasons for disagreement was annexed to the

Page 17 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

said show-cause notice, but it would not carry the case of the

respondent further as no reason for disagreement is germane

from such note except reproduction of charge and given

reference of the said resolution dated 30/09/1982. As per the

settled position of law, the disciplinary authority must record

his reasons of disagreement by recording his

tentative/proposed findings of disagreement with the inquiry

report.

10.1 At this stage, it would be apt to refer to the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ea Singh

(Edwin Annett Singh) and others (supra), wherein, after

considering the entire case law, the Division Bench has held

thus:

“48.From the conspectus of the aforementioned observations

of the Supreme Court and this Court, the following aspects are

required to be maintained when the Disciplinary Authority

disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

(a) There has to be tentative/proposed findings of

the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the

Inquiry Officer’s report recorded in the show-cause

notice.

The show-cause notice of disagreement should be

issued to the delinquent calling upon him as to

“why the findings which are in his favour is/are

not required to be reversed.”

(c) While issuing the show-cause notice, the expression

“charges are proved” should be avoided, since the same

will reflect a predetermined application of mind by the

Disciplinary Authority.

(d) Such show-cause notice shall not stipulate the

imposition of a particular penalty, minor or major. The

Page 18 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

expression “why any of the penalty/punishment shall

not be imposed” should be avoided.

(e) After considering the reply of the delinquent to

the show-cause notice of disagreement, the

Disciplinary Authority has to pass an order

recording a definite finding of guilt reversing the

findings of the Inquiry Officer, by holding the

charges as proved or not proved.

(f) After recording such findings, it is essential

that the delinquent is issued a final show-cause

notice calling upon his explanation for the

imposition of punishment [Vide Lav Nigam

(Supra)].

(g) After receipt of the reply to the show-cause notice,

the Disciplinary Authority has to pass a reasoned and

speaking order imposing appropriate punishment

prescribed under the Rules governing disciplinary

proceedings.

49.The theory of prejudice will also not apply in such

cases. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary

Authority does not meet the parameters enunciated by the

Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions. Hence, the

punishment order, which is premised on such a faulty

approach, cannot be sustained.”

(Emphasis supplied)

10.2Apart from the aforesaid, the disciplinary authority has

also committed a serious error of law by not observing the

principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it has not issued a

final show-cause notice before imposing the impugned order

of penalty dated 16/6/1999. As held above, when the reply of

the delinquent/petitioner herein is not found satisfactory and,

according to the disciplinary authority, charges are proved by

passing an order recording a finding of guilt and reversing the

finding of the Inquiry Officer, it is essential that the

delinquent is issued a final show-cause notice to call upon his

Page 19 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

explanation for the imposition of penalty. Undisputedly, in the

present case, such recourse was not adopted by the

disciplinary authority, which is per se illegal.

11. Even the impugned order of punishment dated

16/6/1999 is also a non-speaking order, inasmuch as neither

any finding nor any reasons were recorded by the disciplinary

authority reversing the finding of the Inquiry Officer qua

charges Nos.2, 3, 4 and 15, as the case may be; rather, the

disciplinary authority has accepted the guilt of the petitioner

by reiterating the said charges served upon the petitioner

along with the charge sheet. There is no cavil that any order

passed, either by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority,

must assign reasons and in the case of a non-speaking order,

this Court requires to interfere. The present is a case where

this Court feels that such interference is required. [See-Masood

Ahmed Khan and others (supra)].

12. Further, it also needs to be recorded here that the

finding as regards financial irregularity recorded in the

impugned order by the disciplinary authority is perverse as

not germane from the charge-sheet served upon the

petitioner. It is also settled law that the disciplinary authority

cannot travel beyond the charge-sheet, served upon the

delinquent-petitioner herein. This shows that without

application of mind, the disciplinary authority has passed an

order of punishment which was unfortunately confirmed by

the reviewing authority by its order dated 9/7/2010.

Page 20 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

13. At last, this Court would have appreciated the argument

of Mr.Rami, learned AGP, as regards non-applicability of the

resolution dated 30/9/1982 issued by the Department of

Industries and Mines of the State of Gujarat, to the facts of

the present case, inasmuch as the financial limit per item

fixed was Rs.5,000/- (no tender process required) and not per

piece of the item as considered by the Inquiry Officer, thereby

held that the cost of one piece of each purchase item in

question was less than Rs.5,000/-; thus, charges Nos.2 to 4

are not proved, is wrong. Yet, for following reasons, I would

not like to accept such submission.

13.1 Firstly, it is recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his

report that the decision regarding the purchase of different

items (more than one piece of each item), totaling more than

Rs.5,000/-, was a decision of the Purchase Committee and not

that of the petitioner alone.

13.2 Secondly, it also remains undisputed, as not

controverted by Mr.Rami, learned AGP, during the course of

argument, that other committee members, though charge-

sheeted, were exonerated from the charges by the Inquiry

Officer and the same was accepted by the disciplinary

authority. This would clearly show that the disciplinary

authority has picked and chosen the officer concerned and, as

such, the petitioner was made a scapegoat. [See-Girish

Chandra Sarma (supra)].

Page 21 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

13.3 Thirdly, the aforesaid act of the respondent clearly

proves that it is a case of discrimination at hand of the

respondent – State, thereby only the petitioner was served

upon the show-cause notice of disagreement dated 31/12/1998

by not agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer qua

said charges. Such an action of the respondent is ex-facie

arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

13.4 Lastly, the argument so canvassed by Mr. Rami,

learned AGP, was not even a reason of disagreement recorded

by the disciplinary authority either at the time of issuing said

notice of disagreement or when passed the impugned order of

punishment.

14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view

that there is basic infirmity remains on part of the disciplinary

authority when it issued impugned show-cause notice and the

order, and same goes to the root of the matter. In view of the

foregoing reasons, the impugned order cannot be allowed to

stand anymore.

CONCLUSION:

15.In view of the aforesaid observations, discussion and

reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order of penalty

dated 16/6/1999, as well as the order dated 9/7/2010 passed

by the respondent, are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, both

the aforesaid orders are hereby quashed and set aside.

Having observed and held hereinabove, the impugned action

Page 22 of 23

C/SCA/8490/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026

of the respondent by serving the notice dated 31/12/1998,

after disagreeing with the inquiry report, is arbitrary,

discriminatory and also violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India; thus, the impugned notice dated

31/12/1998 cannot be allowed to stand anymore and

accordingly, same is hereby quashed and set aside.

15.1Consequently, the petitioner is held to be exonerated

from all charges leveled against him vide the charge sheet

dated 12/9/1994.

16.In light of the foregoing conclusions, the present petition

is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)

GAURAV J THAKER

Page 23 of 23