JAYANT DWARKADAS PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/13723/2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1125 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13849 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1125 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13849 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1132 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14499 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1132 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14499 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1138 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14493 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL NO. 1138 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14493 of 2020
==================================================
JAYANT DWARKADAS PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
LPA/1123/2025
ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
LPA/1125/2025
ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. KRISHNA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
LPA/1132/2025
ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
LPA/1138/2025
ANURAG R RATHOR(9315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. VAISHNAVI VERMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The following facts are not in dispute.
1.1. On 01.02.1980 the petitioner was appointed as a Range
Forest Officer (Class-II) and he served the Forest Department for a
period of 31 years i.e., from 1980 to 2011. The petitioner was
scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.11.2011, at which point of time, he was working as a Deputy
Conservator of Forests.
1.2. Just before the appellant retired, he was issued charge
sheets on 25.10.2011, 08.11.2011, 28.11.2011, and 29.11.2011. The
details of the charges with reference to the date of the charge sheet
are stated in a tabular column for the purpose of clarity:
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
Charge-sheet 1st
Chargesheet
2nd
Chargesheet
3rd
Chargesheet
4th
Chargesheet
Case No. LPA No. 1138
LPA No. 1123
LPA No. 1132
LPA No. 1125
of 2025 in
SCA/14493/20
of 2025 in
SCA/13723/20
of 2025 in
SCA/14499/20
of 2026 in
SCA/13849/20
20
20
20
20
Date of
charge-sheet
25.10.2011 08.11.2011 28.11.2011 29.11.2011
Charges Charges 1 -
Regarding the
matter of
attempting to
misappropriat
e government
funds by
creating false
vouchers/doc
uments for
the payment
of funds,
despite those
funds not
having been
actually
disbursed
Charges 1 -
Irregularities
in regional
plantation
and
negligence
toward
discharging
his duties
Charges 2 -
Wastage of
Government
Funds and
thereby
causing loss
to the
Government
Charges 1 -
Embezzlemen
t of
Government
Funds raised
by biding of
wool collected
at
Hobernment
Depot,
sharing lesser
amount than
the original
amount in
original bid
slip and
acting not in
a proper and
just manner.
Charges 2 -
With an
intension to
conceal his
wrongful act,
the petitioner
issued and
printed bid
slips whereby
amount
raised from
original bid
was entered
and such
record was
added in a
Charges 1 -
Regarding
financial
irregularities
committed by
violating
financial rules
and behaving
in a manner
unbecoming
of a
disbursement
officer.
Charges 2 -
Regarding
causing
financial loss
to the
government
by misusing
authority in
the
distribution of
saplings.
Charges 3 -
Regarding
showing
serious
negligence
and
carelessness
in
administrativ
e duties and
behaving in a
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
back dated
manner with
a view to
defraud the
government.
manner
unbecoming
of a
government
employee.
Charges 4 -
Regarding
committing
financial
embezzlemen
t and
defrauding
the
government
by filing false
T.A.
(Travelling
Allowances)
bills beyond
the actual
duty travel
and
unauthorizedl
y charging
mileage
allowances to
gain personal
benefits
1.3. As could be noticed from the above, one charge sheet was
issued in the fag end of October, 2011, and the remaining three
charge sheets were issued in the month of November, 2011, i.e., the
month in which the petitioner was scheduled to retire. In fact, the last
two charge sheets were furnished to the petitioner two days and one
day before he attained the age of superannuation.
1.4. Pursuant to these four charge sheets, an enquiry was
conducted, and an enquiry report holding that the charges were
proved was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
Authority, on consideration of the enquiry report, proposed to impose
the following punishments, which are also stated in a tabular column
for the sake of clarity.
Date of charge-
sheet
Punishment proposed by the Disciplinary
Authority
25.10.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 500/- for three years.
08.11.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for five years.
28.11.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 2,000/- for five years.
29.11.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for three years.
1.5. Thus, in respect of all the four charge sheets, cumulatively, a
sum of Rs. 4,500/- was ordered to be cut in the pension that the
petitioner was entitled to. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, as
required under Rule 24, sought to consult the Gujarat Public Service
Commission regarding the above penalty of a pension cut of Rs.
4,500/-.
1.6. The Gujarat Public Service Commission, in the guise of
rendering its opinion in the consultative process, proceeded to give an
opinion to the Disciplinary Authority to subject the appellant to a
100% pension cut in respect of one charge sheet and an increase in
the proposed pension cut in respect of two charge sheets, while
agreeing with one penalty cut proposed.
1.7. For the sake of clarity, the opinion rendered by GPSC in
respect of each charge sheet is stated in a tabular form.
Charge Sheet Dated Punishment suggested by GPSC
25.10.2011 An increase in penalty from Rs. 500/- to Rs.
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
1,000/- for three years.
08.11.2011 An increase in the penalty and same in this
subjective valuation GPSC suggested an
increase in penalty proposed that is an
increase of the pension cut of from Rs.
1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- for three years
28.11.2011 GPSC accepted agreed with the proposed
penalty of Rs. 2,000/- pension cut for five
years.
29.11.2011 GPSC rendered an opinion to increase the
penalty from Rs. 1000/- for a period of three
years to a 100% pension cut.
1.8. This opinion of the GPSC was accepted by the Government,
as if it was a diktat, and the Disciplinary Authority accordingly,
proceeded to pass an order imposing a 100% pension cut in respect
of the charge sheet dated 29.11.2011 and also increasing the pension
cuts in respect of 2 charge sheets.
1.9.
The details of the punishment imposed are stated in a
tabular form:-
Charge Sheet
Dated
Punishment proceeded by Disciplinary
Authority
25.10.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 1,000 for three years as
against the original pension cut of Rs. 500 for
three years.
08.11.2011 A pension cut of Rs. 4,000 for five years as
against the penalty of Rs. 1,000 pension cut
for a period of five years suggested by the
Disciplinary Authority.
28.11.2011 The penalty of Rs. 2,000 a pension cut of Rs.
2,000 as proposed by the Disciplinary
Authority and confirmed by the GPSC was
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
imposed.
29.11.2011 A penalty of 100% pension cut was imposed
as against the proposed penalty of Rs. 1,000
for a period of three years
1.10. In short, out of the four charge-sheets for which a penalty
was proposed, GPSC had rendered an opinion that two penalties of
pension cut be increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- and from Rs.
1,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. In respect of the third charge sheet, the
proposed penalty of the Disciplinary Authority of Rs. 2,000 was
agreed to, and in respect of the fourth charge-sheet, as against the
proposed penalty of a pension cut of Rs. 1,000/- for three years, a
complete pension cut was imposed.
1.11. It is clear that the Disciplinary Authority simply went by the
opinion of the GPSC by considering it as a direction. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by this imposition of punishment, filed a writ petition.
1.12.
The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has
proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the
petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 18 of the Gujarat
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.
2. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the
present set of appeals has been filed.
3. Normally, when no order prejudicial to a petitioner is passed
and he has been merely relegated to avail of an alternative remedy,
this Court would not entertain an appeal. However, in the present
case, it was noticed that the appellant attained the age of
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
superannuation in 2011 i.e., 15 years ago, and therefore, subjecting
him to a fresh round of litigation commencing from an appeal would
be unfair. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for consideration on
the merits of the case.
4. At the outset, we wish to state that the appellant has
participated in the enquiry by submitting his defense statements and
also by cross-examining the witnesses. On the appreciation of the
evidence adduced, the enquiry officer has recorded a finding of guilt,
and this has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. In such a
scenario, there cannot be a re-appreciation of the evidence adduced
during the course of the enquiry or a sitting in judgment over the
finding of guilt held and its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority.
We are therefore not delving into the merits of the charges against
the petitioner.
5. We are however constrained to interfere, having regard to the
subsequent events that have occurred after the Disciplinary Authority,
proposed to impose a penalty of a pension cut. As noticed above, the
Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the charges that were
leveled against the petitioner, only thought it fit to propose a total
pension cut of Rs 4,500/- and this pension cut was also for a limited
period.
6. The Disciplinary Authority, as required under Rule 24, which
deals with the right of government to withhold or withdraw pension, in
accordance with the proviso to the said rule, sought to have a
consultation with the GPSC.
7. The meaning of consultation in the context of the rule which
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
provided the government the right to withhold or withdraw a pension
could only mean that the GPSC, a third party and an independent
constitutional authority, would render a a dispassionate opinion
thereby ensuring that no excesses are committed in the matter of
withholding, withdrawing, or reducing a pension by the Government.
8. The GPSC is a Constituional body which is required to be
consulted by the State and it is required to advise the State in matters
relating to recruitment and also in disciplinary matter. The GPSC in
the guise of advising the State cannot act as an authority which can
override the decision of the State. The requirement of the advice of
GPSC is basically to ensure that the State does not commit any
illegality and its action is in accordance with the Rules. The GPSC
cannot act as the decision making authority while acting in an
advisory capacity.
9. The GPSC, can no doubt advise, but, the advise should be
mainly to the manner in which the State has conducted the
disciplinary proceedings. It cannot in the guise of rendering an
opinion, insist upon a higher penalty that the one proposed by the
Disciplinary Authority be imposed.
10. It should not be lost sight of that in service jurisprudence, the
power to impose a punishment and the extent of punishment lies
within the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority. This is on
the fundamental premise that an employer would be the best person
to assess and determine the gravity of charges and the consequential
punishment that can be imposed for a proved charge. The
requirement of a consultation before imposition of the punishment
cannot translate into the consultee insisting or suggesting that a
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
higher penalty that it was proposing should prevail or be accepted.
11. In our view, the GPSC had exceeded its role in suggesting a
higher pension cut and that too, a 100% pension cut be imposed on
the appellant. We are, therefore, of the view that the imposition of the
100% pension cut in respect of the proved charges cannot be
sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.
12. In the view that we have taken, it would therefore be
appropriate that the original punishment proposed by the Disciplinary
Authority, i.e., a total pension cut of Rs 4,500/-, be imposed on the
petitioner for a period of five years. We also are of the view that
having regard to the fact that there is some delay on the part of the
petitioner in approaching this Court and the fact that he did not avail
of the alternative remedy of appeal, the financial interest of the State
would also have to be safeguarded.
13. We therefore direct that the petitioner would not be entitled for
the arrears of pension from the date on which the 100% pension cut
was imposed on him, i.e., 12.02.2020 and the petitioner would only be
entitled to a pension with the cut of Rs 4,500/- from today. This
pension cut of Rs 4,500/- shall be made for a period of five years.
14. In our view, this course of action would ensure that the
punishment proposed by the Disciplinary Authority is in fact the
punishment that is being imposed on the petitioner and at the same
time, the petitioner is also not awarded a financial bonanza because
of the fact that he did not choose to avail of the alternative remedy
and was litigating before this Court.
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026
C/LPA/1123/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
15. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed to the extent stated
above. In view of the order passed in the main matters, the connected
Civil Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
Mehul Desai
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:10:56 IST 2026