SANJA UKABHAI GANGARAMBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Case type
- SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
- Decided on
- 13-03-2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2352 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SANJA UKABHAI GANGARAMBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA V PATEL(5356) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR MITUL GAUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 13/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao on behalf of the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Mitul
Gautam on behalf of the respondent – State and learned
advocate Ms.Asmita Patel on behalf of the respondents no.4
and 5.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner had sought for the
following prayers:-
“(A) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing ans setting aside the
charge-sheet dated 8.2.2006 issued by respondent
no.4 since the respondents have not completed the
departmental inquiry even after lapse of more than
15 years and further be pleased to direct the
respondents to drop the departmental inquiry and
pay to the petitioner all the dues and retiral dues
considering petitioner on duty alongwith all
consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
thereon from the date of suspension of petitioner till
realisation.
(B) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other appropriate relief as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require.
(C) To award the cost of this petition.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been
appointed as an Educational Supervisor, Class-III in the year
1979 with the Municipal School Board, Rajkot managed by the
Municipal Commissioner and while he was working as such, in
the year 2005, he had made some application against the then
administrative officer of the Municipal School Board, Rajkot.
3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of
wrecking vengeance against the petitioner, the administrative
officer had gotten up certain complaints against the petitioner
and whereas, vide an order dated 23.12.2025 the petitioner
had been suspended and whereas, it appears that serious
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
allegations were concerned, while an FIR has been filed by
the administrative officer in the year 2005, neither the FIR
nor does the charge-sheet which had been filed subsequent to
the investigation arraigning the petitioner as an accused.
3.2. It appears that thereafter, a departmental charge-sheet
had been issued to the petitioner on 08.02.2006 and whereas,
it is the case of the petitioner that basis the charge-sheet, the
pension and other retiral benefits, which the petitioner would
be entitled to, have not been fully paid. It also appears that in
the interregnum, since the respondents were not completing
inquiry, appropriate monetary relief had not been paid to the
petitioner, hence, the petitioner had approached this Court on
couple of occasions and pursuant to the directions issued by
this Court, substantial rerial benefits came to be passed on to
the present petitioner.
3.3. It would appear in this regard that while the charge-
sheet had been issued upon the petitioner in the year 2006
and whereas, it is not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner was in any way responsible for the inquiry not
concluding till date and whereas, under such circumstances, it
is requested by the petitioner that the impugned charge-sheet
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
may be set aside and all the benefits, as if the order of the
charge-sheet had never been passed at all, should be passed
on to the present petitioner.
3.4. On the other hand, the case of the respondent –
Corporation being that since the public money is involved, the
corporation may be granted some reasonable time to conclude
the departmental inquiry more particularly learned advocate
Ms.Patel on behalf of the Corporation submitting that a notice
has been issued to the petitioner very recently i.e. on
04.09.2025 and whereas, the Corporation, in right earnest,
would be deciding the departmental inquiry.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao on behalf of the
petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Asmita Patel on behalf of
the respondent – Corporation. The only issue which requires
consideration based upon the submissions made by learned
advocates is that should this Court interfere with the charge-
sheet and direct the Corporation to take appropriate steps as
regards the pending retiral as well as other dues or should the
request of the Corporation for grant of some appropriate time
be considered.
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
5. At the outset, this Court seeks to rely upon observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Andhra
Pradesh vs. N.Radhakishan, reported in 1998 (4) SCC
154 . Paragraphs No.18 and 19 of the said decision being
relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced herein for
benefit:-
“18. In State of Punjab and others vs. Chaman Lal
Goyal (1995 (2) SCC 570), state of Punjab was
aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana quashing memo of charges against
Goyal and also the order appointing Inquiry Officer to
inquire into those charges. In this case the incident,
which was the subject-matter of charge, happened in
December, 1986 and in early January, 1987, when
Goyal was working as supdt. of Nabha High Security
Jail. It was only on July 9, 1992 that memo of charges
was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation of
January 4, 1993 denying the charges. Inquiry Officer
was appointed on July 20, 1993 and soon thereafter
Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on august
24, 1993. The High Court quashed the memo of
charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a
half years in serving the memo of charges, for which
there was no acceptable explanation. This Court
examined the factual position as to how the delay
occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way
on account of delay. This Court relied on the
Principles laid down in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak
(1992 (1) SCC 225), and said, that though that case
pertained to criminal prosecution the principles
enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the
pleas of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings
as well. Referring to decision in A.R.Antulay case this
Court said:-
"In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Court
mentioned the propositions emerging from the
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
several decisions considered therein and
observed that "ultimately the court has to
balance and weigh the several relevant factors -
balancing test or balancing process - and
determine in each case whether the right to
speedy trial has been denied in a given case." It
has also been held that, ordinarily speaking,
where the court comes to the conclusion that
right to speedy trial of the accused has been
infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the
case may be, will be quashed. At the same time,
it has been observed that that is not the only
course open to the court and that in a given case,
the nature of the offence and other
circumstances may be such that quashing the
proceedings may not be in the interest of justice.
In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to
the court to make such other appropriate order
as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance
of the case."
In that case this Court said that it was more
appropriate and in interest of justice as well as in the
interest of administration that inquiry which has
proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be
completed. At the same time the Court directed that
Goyal should be considered forthwith for promotion
without reference to and without taking into
consideration the charges or the pendency of the
inquiry, if he is found fit for promotion.
19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-
determined principles applicable to all cases and in
all situations where there is delay in concluding the
disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the
disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each
case has to be examined on the facts and
circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter
is that the court has to take into consideration all
relevant factors and to balance and weight them to
determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest
administration that the disciplinary proceedings
should be allowed to terminate after delay
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no
explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee
has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him
are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to
undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when
these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault
on his part in delaying the proceedings. In
considering whether delay has vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider
the nature of charge, its complexity and on what
account the delay has occurred. if the delay is
unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to
how much disciplinary authority is serious in
pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the
basic principle of administrative justice that an officer
enterusted with a particular job has to perform his
duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the
rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a
penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to take its course as
per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice.
Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless
it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper
explanation for the delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to
balance these two diverse consideration.”
5.1. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it would appear that interference in a disciplinary
proceedings on the ground of delay is permissible at the stage
of issuance of charge-sheet and on account of the disciplinary
proceedings not concluding within a reasonable period. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that while the Court is
required to take into consideration all relevant factors and
balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
clear and honest administration that the disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to terminate when delay is
abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
5.2. On the other hand, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that a delinquent employee has a right that the
departmental proceedings are decided as soon as possible and
then the employee is not required to undergo the pain and
agony and the loss which occurs on account of the inquiry
prolonging unnecessarily even without any fault on the part of
the employee concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
further observed that when the issue of whether the
disciplinary proceedings should be interfered with on the
ground of delay occurred, the Court is required to consider
the nature of charge etc. and also the issue on account of
which the delay has occurred.
5.3. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that when the delay is unexplained, then prejudice
to the employee is writ large and whereas, it is further
observed that delay in concluding the departmental
proceedings reflects on the seriousness of the authorities
concerned in pursuing the charges against the employee.
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
5.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observes that while
delay would cause prejudice to an officer, the said observation
would be subject to condition that the officer concerned
should not be at blame for the delay or the authorities have
proper explanation for the delay in concluding the disciplinary
proceedings. The Court is under an obligation to balance the
diverse consideration.
6. Appreciating the fact situation from the perspective of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while it is
an admitted position that charge-sheet had been issued to the
petitioner in the year 2006 and whereas, the petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation in the year 2009, the
departmental proceedings have not yet been concluded. It
also does not appear to be the case of the respondents here
that the petitioner is to be blamed for the delay that has
occurred and whereas, the only submission made on behalf of
the Corporation being that a notice for concluding the inquiry
has been issued to the petitioner on 04.09.2025 then some
adequate time may be granted.
6.1. To this Court, it would appear that since it is not the
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
case of the respondents i.e. the disciplinary authority that the
petitioner is to blame for the delay in concluding the
disciplinary proceedings and the unexplained delay being
extraordinary huge to ignore i.e. of approximately 19 years,
the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as regards the
employee being prejudiced on account of the unexplained
delay, would automatically come into play.
6.2. To this Court, it would appear that while a State
Authority would be justified in stating that there would be
some delay in concluding a disciplinary proceedings if the
charges are complex, in the instant case, neither the
disciplinary proceedings has come with the case that the
charges are complex which require extraordinary amount of
time for concluding, nor it is a case of the disciplinary
authority that the petitioner was in any manner to blame for
the delay.
6.3. Under such circumstances, to this Court, after 19 years
of the charge-sheet being issued and approximately after 16
years of the petitioner having retired from service, the
disciplinary proceedings not concluding, clearly reflects the
fact that the authorities were not at all serious in completing
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
the disciplinary proceedings.
7. In this view of the matter, to this Court, the charge-sheet
cannot be permitted to continue any further and whereas, the
same requires appropriate interference. Furthermore, since
the charge-sheet is being interfered with by this Court, all
necessary consequences as if the disciplinary proceedings
were never initiated against the petitioner, shall be required
to be ordered. Hence, in view of the above observations,
discussion and conclusion, the following directions are
passed:-
(i) The impugned charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006 is quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all financial
emoluments on account of the charge-sheet being set aside as
if the disciplinary proceedings were never initiated against
the petitioner.
(iii) All financial dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/2352/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026
(iv) Considering that the petitioner has been denied his
complete retiral benefits for a period of approximately 16
years on account of a disciplinary proceedings initiated vide
charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006 and since it does not appear
that the respondent – Corporation was seriously interested in
concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the present
petitioner, the financial emoluments which would now be paid
to the petitioner shall carry an interest of 6% from the date of
entitlement till the date of payment. The amount as above,
shall also be paid within the stipulated period of eight (08)
weeks as above.
8. With the above observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 18:40:54 IST 2026