MUKESH BAVANJIBHAI PARGHI v. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER

C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5796 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9351 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No Yes - ========================================== MUKESH BAVANJIBHAI PARGHI Versus THE DIVISION CONTROLLER & ANR.

========================================== Appearance:

KHUSHBU D CHHAYA(8093) for the Petitioner No.1 HAMESH C. NAIDU for the Respondent No.1 MRUNAL DHOLARIA AGP for the Respondent No. 2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 06/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Special Civil Application No.5756 of 2020 is 8led by the petitioner – employee under Articles 226 and 227 of t he Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- (a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ o r order and be pleased to;

(b) To quash and set aside the order and award passe d by the Labour Court in Ref (LCR) No.49/2018 dated 22.11.20 19 by Page 1 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 declaring the same as illegal.

(c) To pass an order against the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages with all incidental bene,ts -owing from the continuity of service.”

2. Special Civil Application No. 9351 of 2020 is 8led by the petitioner – employer under Articles 226 and 227 of t he Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge , Labour Court No.2, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Case No. 49/2018.

3. The facts of the present case, in nutshell, are t hat the employee was serving with employer as a driver and his servic es came to be terminated on the ground that he had consumed liquor while he was on duty on the route from Jhalod to Jasdan and he w as intoxicated, due to which Criminal Case No.378/2015 was 8led bef ore the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondal whereby he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate and despite this fact, the petit ioner was terminated from the services without following due procedure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred Reference (LCR) Case No.

49/2018 before the Labour Court, which came to be dismissed.

4. Heard Ms.Khushbu Chhaya, learned counsel for the p etitioner and Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – employer at length.

5. Ms.Khushbu Chhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the mem o of petition and has also submitted that the petitioner was termi nated from the services without initiating any inquiry and/or depa rtmental Page 2 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 proceedings and, therefore, the order of termination cannot be passed against the petitioner. She has submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error of law and facts in passing the impugned award and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

She has submitted that the penalty imposed upon the p etitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the charge levelled a gainst him and, therefore, instead of terminating the petitioner fro m the services, he could have been put in original post or stopped inc rement for future eFect, however, straightway the order of termination was passed and, therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be qu ashed and set aside.

5.1 Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has further submitted that the Labour Court has recorded the 8nding that the charg es were proved against the petitioner, which fact is unjust, illeg al and arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. Over-and-abov e, the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labo ur Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petiti on 8led by the employee deserves to be allowed and the petition 8led by the employer deserves to be dismissed.

5.2 In support of her submissions, Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 202 4 SC 637 :

2024 (1) SCC 175;

(ii) Pinky Meena Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, AIR 2025 SC 3013;

(iii) Gopalbhai Jagdishbhai Bhddhadev Vs. State of Gu jarat, 2025 Page 3 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 (3) GLR 1787;

(iv) Hajabhai Markhibhia Nandaniya Vs. District Agricul ture OHcer, 2026 JX (Guj) 13;

(v) Jyotindrasinh Hemuba Vaghela Vs. Divisional Contro ller in Special Civil Application No. 7012 of 2025 dated 27. 06.2025;

6. Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent – employer has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and even probation period was not completed and before that the petitioner was found to be intoxicated while on duty and, therefore, he abandoned the bus along with the passengers, for which, the prohibition case was reg istered before the Gondal Police Station. He has submitted that the def ence raised by the petitioner that he was sick and, therefore, he had consumed some medicine and he had not consumed any liquor, despite this, he had driven the bus from Jhalod upto Gondal and he had n ot informed the conductor with regard to his sickness nor had he in formed any of the authorized person at S.T. Bus Depot. He has submitte d that on the contrary, the petitioner abandoned the bus upto Gon dal and informed the conductor that he arranged another driver to reach at the destination of Jasdan and then he went to hospital at Gondal for treatment, but that defence was not tenable in the e yes of law and believable. He has submitted that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence which suggests that he was sick on the relevant day and he was taking treatment of his sickness of the concerned doctor nor produced any prescription of the doctor or medical certi8cate and did not give the name of the concerned doctor, who has prescribed the medicine. He has submi tted that in fact, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner where also he has not produced any evidence with re gard to his Page 4 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 sickness and not raised any such contention and, therefore, the disciplinary authority has terminated the service o f the petitioner and the Labour Court has con8rmed the order passed by th e disciplinary authority. He has submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order of punishment passed by the authority and, therefore, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the order passed by the Labour Court deserves to be con8rmed.

7. It appears that the Coordinate Bench of this Cour t admitted Special Civil Application No.5796 of 2020 on 11.01.2021 and on 14.08.2020, Special Civil Application No. 9351 of 20 20 also admitted and granted interim relief.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of t he case and the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties, the issues involved in the petition, which are posed before this Court for determination, are as under:- (i) Whether the Labour Court was rightly justi8ed wh ile passing the impugned award where the reference of the employee was dismissed and order of punishment imposed by the employ er was con8rmed or not?

(ii) Whether the punishment imposed by the employer was harsh and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him or not?

(iii) Whether the contention with regard to the fact that without following procedure or without initiation of any disciplinary proceedings or inquiry, the order of removal can be passed against the employee or not?

Page 5 of 10

C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 9. Considering the above referred facts and the char ge levelled against the employee, it appears that on 30.09.2014, while the employee was on duty on the route from Jhalod to Jas dan, he had consumed liquor and when he reached at Gondal Depot he abandoned the bus and asked the conductor to arrange another driver to reach at Jasdan and then he went to the C ivil Hospital, Jasdan for taking treatment. The concerned department has issued show-cause notice, which was replied by the employee and he was given suHcient opportunity to produce relevant docu mentary evidence to prove the charge levelled against him w as illegal and unjust and he failed to produce any documentary evid ence. It was also the contention of the employee before the disci plinary authority that he being permanent employee of the Corporation a nd, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings provided under the sta nding order and under the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation, the petitioner could have been given proper opportunity to disproportionate the charge levelled against him and without initiating departmental inquiry, he was removed from the service s which itself is against the settled principles of law and principles of natural justice.

The said fact is not justi8ed as petitioner was app ointed on probation and he has not completed the probation period and, t herefore, till completion of probation period, the petitioner canno t be considered as permanent employee. However, the disciplinary authority has issued show-cause notice against which the petition er has 8led reply and he has not submitted any evidence in support of his contention and, therefore, the order to remove the petitioner from the services cannot be said to be disproportionate and harsh. In fact, the driver having responsibility of the life of the passengers carried in the S.T.

Bus and without considering such fact, if the drive r consumed liquor Page 6 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 while he was on duty, it is serious misconduct on th e part of the employee and, therefore, the order of dismissal or r emoval cannot be said to be disproportionate. The Labour Court has, while passing the impugned award, observed that the employee had not 8led any application challenging the legality and validity o f the inquiry initiated by the disciplinary authority and unless and until it is challenged by the employee before the Labour Court, the Labour Court cannot exercise the power in case of quantum of punishment. In the present case, the charge levelled against the petitioner wa s serious in nature and there is misconduct on the part of the petitioner which was proved and even the criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was charge-sheeted by the concern ed police station merely because he was exonerated or acquitted by the concerned Court, automatically, he cannot be entitled for reinstatement of service. The disciplinary proceedings and the crimi nal case are on diFerent footing and such evidence of the criminal c ase is required to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

10. It appears that on the basis of the complaint, th e respondent had issued show-cause notice on 09.06.2015 and the same was replied by the petitioner and, thereafter, on 02.12.2015, the petitioner was removed from the services. During the inquiry p roceedings, the petitioner was given proper opportunity to lead evidence, however, he has neither led any evidence to challenge the legal ity and validity of the inquiry nor raised any objection nor challenged the same before the Labour Court and, therefore, the order of punis hment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate or harsh. The Labour Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Sect ion 11A, has found that the order of punishment was disproportionate to the charge and under that circumstances, the Labour Court can inter fere with. The Page 7 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 scope of interference in the order on the ground of quantum and punishment is well decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou rt and this Court in the case of (1) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (1) SCC 115, (2) Union Of India Vs. P.Gunasekaran, AIR 2015 SC 545 , (3) Pradeepkumar Thakur Vs. State Bank of India and another, 2024 (2) GLH 149 and (4) G.M. (Operations) S.B.I Vs. R. Periyasamy reported in (2015) 3 SCC 101 . It is relevant to note that the complaint being C.R.No.II 542/2014 lodged by the Manager, Jasdan De pot against the employee for the oFence under Section 66(1)A r/w. Se ction 85(1) and (3) of the Prohibition Act, for which he was charge-sheeted and merely because the employee was acquitted by the compe tent Court does not mean that he is entitled for the relief as sought for in the reference automatically. Even the conductor namely Ashwinbhai Manubhai Miyatra, who was on duty along with the pr esent petitioner, has given the statement to the TraHc Inspector that when they reached near Virnagar Aatcot boundary at Gondal at that time the petitioner abandoned the bus bearing Registration N o. GJ-18-Y-9109 and he got down from the bus and, therefore, the co nductor has informed the concerned Depot Manager to send another driver to carry the bus to Jasdan. Considering the fact that the petitioner was appointed for a 8xed period of 8ve years and 8rst t wo years was the probation period and during the probation, if the e mployee commits any irregularity or misconduct, he will be removed f rom the services and, therefore, considering the said fact and misco nduct on the part of the petitioner, the order of removal passed by the respondent cannot be said to be disproportionate and harsh.

11. Considering the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra) and in the case of Vinod Page 8 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 Kumar (supra) and in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) with regard to proportionality or quantum of punishment, the Court has very limited scope to interfere with the 8ndings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Under such circumstances, th e award passed by the Labour Court, in my opinion, is just and proper and in consonance with the settled law and therefore no interference is required to be called for and hence, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.

12. In the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 19 as under:- “19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exerc ise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authorit y has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness;

honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with ,rm adherence to a code of moral values.”

13. On perusal of the impugned award, it clearly transpir es that the Labour Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in passing the award. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned award of the Labour Court Page 9 of 10 C/SCA/5796/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026 is sustainable in the eyes of law and the present p etitions deserve to be dismissed.

14. In view of the above and considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid decision s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, t he present petitions are devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rul e is discharged.

Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith.

There shall be on order as to costs.

16. In view of the disposal of Special Civil Applicat ion No.5756 of 2020, Special Civil Application No.9351 of 2020 stan ds dismissed.

Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. There shall be on order as to costs.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

V.R. PANCHAL

Page 10 of 10

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.

Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/03/2026 15:15:51