1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents-State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.

2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Chargesheet was served to the petitioner pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence and charge-sheet was served to the petitioner pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized purchase of medicines/ equipment at higher cost than market price by misusing his powers as superintendent purchasing authority and the petitioner has filed reply against both charge sheets and ultimately, the petitioner was found guilty as per inquiry officer report against charges of unauthorized absence.

Furthermore, on 02.05.2003, the petitioner filed appeal against the dismissal order and on 13.08.2020, order passed by appellate authority confirming the dismissal. Hence, the petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Tanna Associates for the petitioner and Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:- 5.1 Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Tanna Associates for the petitioner has referred to the Page 3 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined pleadings of the petition as well as reply filed by the respondent and has submitted that the petitioner is now aged 70 years old and has gone through bypass surgery, his wife is also suffering from Cancer. He has submitted that the petitioner was serving in the year 1974 as Medical Officer, Class-1 (Division-I), Civil Surgeon. As back as in the year 1995, he sought voluntary retirement due to his health problem. He has submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Civil Surgeon at Kheda, the complainant, who has alleged that petitioner had taken Rs.50/- and accordingly, trap was arranged and thereafter, the Sessions Case was tried by the Sessions Court and the petitioner got acquitted on 20.10.1995. He has further submitted that this Hon'ble High Court has also confirmed the judgment of the Court below against acquittal and no further proceeding is filed by State Government by challenging that order. He has further submitted that departmental inquiry was instituted but it did not proceed further and there was no final outcome despite repeated reminder by the petitioner. He has further submitted that allegation in that inquiry was regarding purchase committee and purchases were done by the purchase committee and petitioner never made any purchase himself and committee also took advise of the consultant and hospital staff and drugs were accordingly purchased.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined 5.2 He has further submitted that pursuant to the order of acquittal, the petitioner was given appointment conveying him that this appointment will be considered as fresh appointment and he will not get any seniority and his salary was not commensurating with what he was getting and, therefore, considering all these aspects and considering the fact that in view of this onerous condition, the petitioner did not like to continue. Therefore, the petitioner has applied to get voluntary retirement and based on that, he should be given all benefits. He has further submitted that at the time when he has submitted his application for voluntary retirement, there was nothing pending against him. Therefore, he has submitted that considering all these aspects, whereby the country governed by rule of law, such treatment which is given by the department to the petitioner by not accepting his voluntary retirement and not giving necessary benefits are totally unjust and improper.

5.3 He has drawn my attention towards the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10203 of 2007, which is filed by the present petitioner and has submitted that while quashing and setting aside the earlier order passed by the Authority, this Court has directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in detail and to pass speaking and reasoned Page 5 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined order. He has, by referring to the impugned order passed by the Authority, which is subject matter of the present petition, submitted that except reiteration of the material available on the record and by making some general observation in the impugned order, the authorities have decided the case of the petitioner, which is not as per the direction of the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10203 of 2007. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727, and has submitted that the present case is a clear case of non-application of mind considering the fact that despite the direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide aforesaid order dated 29.01.2020, such aspects are not properly considered and authorities have failed to do so by not complying with the directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in appropriate manner. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation v. A. Masilamani reported in 2013 (6) SCC 530, whereby the word "consider" is explained. He has further submitted that considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (5) SCC 242, whereby it is held that that the statutory authorities are under an Page 6 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined obligation to decide the appeal by dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal, otherwise it would be a case of non-

application of mind. He has further submitted that once the petitioner was called upon by the authorities to tender his explanation to the findings of the inquiry officer, it was mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider all the contentions raised by him in his defence statements. He has further submitted that the appellate authority was required to deal with the appeal on merits by dealing with all the contentions raised in appeal. He has submitted that accordingly, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is against the provisions of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is required to be interfered with. In view of the above, he has prayed to allow the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

reported in (2013) 10 SCC 253, more particularly, paragraphs 8 to 12 are relevant.

( ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Prakash reported in 2025 LabLR 1, more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant.

( iii) Chennai Metropolitan Water v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, more particularly, paragraphs 23, 24, 27 and 28 are relevant.

( iv) Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

( v) Ranjitsinh Natvarsinh Dabhi v. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (2) GLH 42, more particularly, paragraphs 12, 14 to 18 are relevant.

( vi) Umesh Madiwala v. State Of Karnataka reported in 2022 (6) SCC 563, more particularly, paragraph 17 is relevant.

( vii) Union Of India & Ors v. P.Gunasekaran reported in 2015 (2) SCC 610, more particularly, paragraphs 14 to 22 are relevant.

( viii) Union Of India And Ors v. Sitaram Mishra reported in 2019 (20) SCC 588, more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant.

( ix) Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee reported in 2025 (4) SCC 111, more particularly, paragraphs 33 to 34 are relevant.

6.5 In view of the above, she has prayed to allow the present petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties.

7.2 It is relevant to refer the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10203 of 2007, more particularly, relevant paragraphs are 9 and 10, which read as under:

7.3 It is also relevant to refer to the judgments cited at the bar by Mr. Bhaskar Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Tanna Associates for the petitioner in support of his case, which are as follows:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

(ii) A. Masilamani (supra), relevant observations are as under:

postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide: Director, Marketing, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar , (2006) 11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. Stateof Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771)."

(iii) In the case of Vijay Singh (supra), whereby it is relevant to consider the submissions of learned senior advocate for the petitioner that that the statutory authorities are under an obligation to decide the appeal by dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal, otherwise it would be a case of non-

application of mind. Once the petitioner was called upon by the authorities to tender his explanation to the findings of the inquiry officer, it was mandatory on the part of the Page 14 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined disciplinary authority to consider all the contentions raised by him in his defence statements. Similarly, the appellate authority was required to deal with the appeal on merits by dealing all the contentions raised in appeal. The same suffers from non-application of mind and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

7.4 It is also relevant to refer to the judgments cited at the bar by Dr. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State, which are as follows:

8 to 12 are relevant, which are as under:

A similar view has been reiterated in G.T. Lad & Ors. v. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd. , AIR 1979 SC 582.

(ii) Om Prakash (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant, which are as under:

09.05.1997.

12. Such conduct of the respondent could not have been condoned by the employer and therefore, in our assessment, treating the respondent to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted. It is also necessary for us to say that as the delinquent was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the FCI, he was disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

(iii) T.T. Murali Babu (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 23, 24, 27 and 28 are relevant, which are as under:

24. Again, while dealing with the concept of punishment the Court ruled as follows: -

27. Presently, we shall proceed to scrutinize whether the High Court is justified in applying the doctrine of proportionality. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. In this regard a passage from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another v. Ashok Kumar Arora [13] is worth reproducing: -

28. In Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham [14], the Court analysed the conception of proportionality in administrative law in England and India and thereafter addressed itself with regard to the punishment in disciplinary matters and opined that unless the court/tribunal opines in its secondary role that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.[15] and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service[16] norms, the punishment cannot be quashed."

(iv) Sadhana Lodh (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 are relevant, which are as under:

Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of an illustration, where a trial Court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 C.P.C., in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, where the State legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C., no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Page 21 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."

(v) Ranjitsinh Natvarsinh Dabhi (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 12, 14 to 18 are relevant, which are as under:

"8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process. The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

9. In State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao2 , a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held as under:

10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.3, Page 23 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined again, a three Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:

11. In High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr.4 , this Court held that interference with the decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as under:

12. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya 5, this Court held that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:

13. In another judgement reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran6 , this Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

14. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari7 , wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the Writ Court could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary 6 (2015) 2 SCC 610 7 2017 2 SCC 308 Page 30 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined authority. It is not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on the ground that there are discrepancies in NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined the evidence of the Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.

15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate Authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed larger bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao and B.C. Chaturvedi as mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be sustained in law."

14. In the decision of coordinate bench this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1305 of 2022 in Special Civil Page 31 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Application No. 15418 of 2019 decided on 15.3.2023, this Court has held as under:-

28. In Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham [14], the Court analysed the conception of proportionality in administrative law in England and India and thereafter addressed itself with regard to the punishment in disciplinary matters and opined that unless the court/tribunal opines in its secondary role that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.[15] and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service[16] norms, the punishment cannot be quashed.

29. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others[17], the Court, after analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled thus: -

30. After so stating the two-Judge Bench proceeded to say that one of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment is whether any reasonable employer would have imposed such punishment in like circumstances taking into consideration the major, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances after excluding irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. It is apt to note here that in the said case the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for six months and admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he neither had any intention nor desire to disobey the order of superior authority or violated any of the rules or regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. As has been seen from the analysis made by the High Court, it has given emphasis on past misconduct of absence and first time desertion and thereafter proceeded to apply the doctrine of proportionality. The aforesaid approach is obviously incorrect. It is telltale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer Page 35 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the doors of the court at his own will. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of "habitual absenteeism" is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate.

31. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform Page 36 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and another v. George Philip [18]: - "In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months' time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same."

32. We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and re- state with the hope that employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an Page 37 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined organization develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development.

33. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. The result of aforesaid analysis would entail overturning the judgments and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and, accordingly, we so do."

15. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of C S. Amin Vs. Assistant General Manager SBI, Region III & 2 reported in 2016 LawSuit (Guj) 1916 wherein this Court has observed as under:-

22. In a very recent pronouncement in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [2015(2) SCC 610], the Supreme Court in details has explained the position of law so NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED:

The High Court can only see whether: (a). the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b). the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c). there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d). the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e). the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f). the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g). the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h). the disciplinary authority had NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20457/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2024 undefined erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i). the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13 Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

15 In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], the principles have been further discussed at paragraphs-21 to 24, which read as follows:

In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 :

19 The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 20 Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the Page 49 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority 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 firm adherence to a code of moral values.

23. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank (supra), the Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 held as under:

Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik , 1996 (9) SCC 69, it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.

15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All ER 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dedley) Ltd. v. Crabtres (1974 LCR 120), it was observed :

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

25. In the case of Ganesh Santa Ram (supra), the Supreme Court observed in paras 32 and 33 as under:

Mr. Salve's above submissions is well merited acceptance and we see much force in the said submission.

33. The Bank Manager/Officer and employees and any Bank nationalised/or non-nationalised are expected to act and discharge their functions in Page 54 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and Trust and a misconduct.

In the instant case Charge No.5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant rule which prohibits the Bank Manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant does not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realized the mistake later and tried to salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decisions. The Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and therefore as rightly pointed out by Mr. Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the Appellate Authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before concluding, we may usefully rely on the judgment Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. reported in 2003(3) SCC

605. Wherein this Court has held as under :- "If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be Page 55 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned single Judge upholding the order of dismissal."

26. In the case of A.L. Tripathi (Supra), the observations of the Supreme Court in Para-36 are relevant:- 36. We may also mention that the appellant has contended that there is no evidence that the appellant has actually defrauded the Bank or actual loss or damage has been caused to the Bank or actual risk has been incurred by the Bank. That is true. But the charge against the appellant was that he had so conducted himself which exposed the Bank to grave risk and for which his explanation was not accepted, after considering his explanation and after personal hearing reasonably an opinion may be formed that his conduct was such that defrauding of the Bank might have been caused. These were the charges against, him and these are the charges upon which he was accused. Therefore, whether actual loss or damage had been caused or not, is in our opinion immaterial. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the arguments on this aspect of the matter on behalf of Page 56 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined the appellant cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question whether these rules under which the enquiry was conducted were statutory rules or not and as such whether the appellant has any statutory remedy against the orders impugned.

27. In view of the various judgments referred to above , no case could be said to have been made out by the writ applicant herein for interference. It is not a case of "no evidence". If there is some legal evidence on record and the same has been accepted, then this Court should not interfere in the matters arising from the departmental inquiry.

28. The above takes me to consider the last submission of Mr. Mehta that the penalty of dismissal in the facts of the case and having regard to the nature of the misconduct could be said to be shockingly disproportionate."

16. In the case of Bhikhubhai Kamabhai Dabhi Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and 2 reported in 2017 LawSuit (Guj) 9 this Court has held as under:-

"17. It is now well settled by a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court that in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not venture into the reappreciation of evidence or interfere with the Page 57 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry proceedings, if the same are conducted in accordance with law or go into the reliability / adequacy of evidence, or interfere, if there is some legal evidence on which the findings are based, or correct error of fact however grave it may be, or go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the conscience.

18. It is equally well settled that the High Courts in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 can only consider whether the inquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with the procedure established by law, and the principles of natural justice,whether irrelevant or extraneous consideration and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence being influenced the decision rendering it vulnerable.

21. In a very recent pronouncement in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [2015(2) SCC 610], the Supreme Court in details has explained the position of law so far as the scope of interference in the matter relating to the disciplinary proceedings is concerned. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court from paras 12 to 20 as under:

the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i). the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined 13 Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). reappreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

14 In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao1 , many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:

15 In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], the principles have been further discussed at paragraphs 21 to 24, which read as follows:

This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.

23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence Page 64 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477).

24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That Page 65 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do." 16 These principles have been succinctly summedup by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined 17 In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (AIR 2014 SC 1141), these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything. On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings: "Article was held as proved by the Inquiry authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P. Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus to the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was handicapped in producing his defence witness. . ...

17. The above-mentioned decisions of this Court gives a clear idea of the limited scope of judicial review of the discretion exercised by the employer to impose the particular penalty on the delinquent employee. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the High Courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It has been held that the punishment Page 68 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined imposed by the competent authority cannot be modified / substituted with a lesser penalty unless the Court is satisfied that the same is grossly or shockingly disproprtionate or is so unreasonable that no person of reasonable prudence would have imposed such punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. For determination of the question whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant facts including the nature of charges proved, the past conduct of the employee, the punishment if any imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned to the employee having due regard to their sensitiveness performance norms if any laid down by the employer and above all the paramount requirement of maintaining discipline in the service."

(vi) Umesh Madiwala (supra), more particularly, paragraph 17 is relevant, which are as under:

(vii) P. Gunasekaran (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 14 to 22 are relevant, which are as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

15. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao [1], many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:

16. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [2], the principles have been further discussed at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as follows:

17. These principles have been succinctly summed-up by Page 76 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [3]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:

18. In all the subsequent decisions of this Court upto the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu[4], these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering Page 77 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined anything.

19. On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings:

20. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined

21. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise 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 authority 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 firm adherence to a code of moral values.

22. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. These aspects have been discussed at quite length by this Court in several decisions including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [5], Union of India Page 79 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined and another v. G. Ganayutham [6], Om Kumar and others v. Union of India [7], Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another [8], Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others[9] and the recent one in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply (supra)."

(viii) Sitaram Mishra (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant, which are as under:

Severe disciplinary action must be taken against the defaulters." The fact that the first respondent was acquitted in the course of the criminal trial cannot operate ipso facto as a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, in our view, has drawn an erroneous inference from the decision of this Court in Capt M Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd2 . The High Court adverted to the following principle of law laid down in the above judgment:

(ix) Pradip Kumar Banerjee (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 33 to 34 are relevant, which are as under:

7.5 I have also considered the materials available on the record, which clearly transpires that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal appeal and at the relevant point of time, immediately, he has made application in the year 1995 for his voluntary retirement, but it seems that that application is not considered for long period. Thereafter, it seems that the authorities have rejected that application and thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application to allow him to join as directed by the authorities. The application Page 83 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined was preferred on 02.07.1998 and that application was considered almost after one and a half year by the respondent-authority by passing order on 03.12.1999 by putting some condition on the petitioner that any decision in the pending court case and departmental inquiry will be binding on him as well as his services will practically be considered as fresh appointment as the period of absence from 21.10.1995 till the date of reporting for resuming his duty shall be excluded from the consideration of period of pensionable service and it is also the condition that the he is not entitled to get any salary for the period of his absence and his service tenure will have to be reassessed. It transpires that thereafter, the charge-sheets were also served on 05.02.2001 and 19.02.2001. It transpires that the final report is also given by the authorities pursuant to the inquiry in two different charges one is for unauthorised absence and another is for the purchase of the medical equipments without authority. Both the inquiry reports are given by the inquiry officer on 06.05.2002 and on 10.03.2003.

Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the departmental appeal which was also rejected and thereafter, the petition is filed before this Court where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has vide order dated 29.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10203 of 2007 found that the said order is a non-speaking order and the matter is remanded back for Page 84 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined fresh consideration and directed to decide the same by giving cogent and convincing reasons.

7.6 From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the authorities have not given the detailed findings as required and has only made some discussion in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, which are prima facie found insufficient, and is without discussing everything in detail and has given the findings on the material available on the record and, therefore, in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be considered as clear case of non-

application of mind.

7.7 Moreover, it transpires that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Court and that order was confirmed by this Hon'ble High Court in ACB case. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement which was rejected and was asked him to rejoin the duty and accordingly, the petitioner has filed application for permitting him to rejoin the duty in the year 1998 which is replied after more than 15 months by putting condition that it will be considered almost as a fresh appointment and seniority of the petitioner was also required to be disturbed.

7.8 It is also found that the petitioner himself is also Page 85 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined undergone bypass surgery and his health is also not keeping well.

7.9 There is no dispute about ratio of the judgments cited at the bar by both the parties but prima facie, it seems that in the impugned order passed by the authority concerned, the Authority has dealt with the materials available on the record in its truest context and when the Court has remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, it has to be considered in accordance with law.

7.10 It is also required to be noted that statutory authorities are under an obligation to decide the appeal or proceedings by dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal or proceedings, otherwise it can be considered as non-

application of mind. It is also found from the record that once the petitioner was called upon by the authorities to tender his explanation to the findings of the inquiry officer, it was mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider all the contentions raised by him in his defence statements. It is also obligatory on the appellate authority to deal with the appeal on merits by dealing with all the contentions raised in appeal. If it is not so, the same suffers from non-application of mind considering the ratio of various judgments, more particularly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Page 86 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15515/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Apex Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra).

CONCLUSION:

8. In view of the above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be succeeded. The impugned order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the respondent-authority is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside on the ground that no proper consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the impugned order is found. Accordingly, the respondent-authorities are further directed to release forthwith all the pensionary benefits from the date of the superannuation of the petitioner with interest in accordance with policy of the Government to grant such interest in terms of resolution of Government of Gujarat for delayed payments. Such exercise shall be carried out by the respondent-authorities within ten weeks from today and pay the necessary benefits to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 87 of 87 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 08 21:53:13 IST 2025