Dismissal order based on inquiry where Presenting Officer fails to examine witnesses violates natural justice and Rule 9(13).

The petitioner, a government servant, challenged an order dated 19.11.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 dismissing him from service following a disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner alleged that during the inquiry, the Presenting Officer failed to examine any witnesses to prove the charges, thereby violating statutory rules and principles of natural justice.

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy via an appeal to the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal under Rule 18 of the 1971 Rules.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy

2. Whether the failure to examine witnesses by the Presenting Officer during a departmental inquiry vitiates the inquiry and the subsequent dismissal order

Sub-rule (13) of Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which mandates that the Presenting Officer must examine witnesses to prove the articles of charges

PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024), which establishes that an alternative remedy is no bar to a writ petition if the order was passed in total violation of natural justice

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) and Nitin Panachand Parmar v. State of Gujarat (2022), which hold that charges in a quasi-judicial departmental proceeding must be proved by evidence and the non-examination of witnesses renders the inquiry report a mere ipse dixit

The court rejected the State's preliminary objection, reasoning that while alternative remedies usually preclude writ jurisdiction, exceptions exist for "total violation of the principles of natural justice"

Applying Rule 9(13) of the 1971 Rules to the facts, the court found that the Presenting Officer produced no oral evidence and examined no witnesses to prove the serious charges against the petitioner

The court held that the Inquiry Officer's findings were based merely on the reproduction of the Presenting Officer's response rather than legally admissible proof.

Because the petitioner was deprived of the right to cross-examine non-existent witnesses, the court determined the entire inquiry was inherently faulty and the dismissal order was a "slipshod" exercise of power

The court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages.

The court granted the State liberty to conduct a de novo inquiry from the stage of the petitioner's defense statement, emphasizing that any fresh determination must strictly comply with Rule 9(13) by examining witnesses and adhering to natural justice.