SANJA UKABHAI GANGARAMBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     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
     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 bene'ts 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 o2icer 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

o2icer 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
   C/SCA/2352/2022                         JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




allegations were concerned, while an FIR has been 4led by

the administrative o2icer in the year 2005, neither the FIR

nor does the charge-sheet which had been 4led 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 bene4ts, 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 bene4ts 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
     C/SCA/2352/2022                       JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




may be set aside and all the bene4ts, 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
     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

bene4t:-

             “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 O9icer 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 O9icer
             was appointed on July 20, 1993 and soon thereafter
             Goyal 'led 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 've 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
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   o9ence    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 'nds 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 't 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
   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 o9icer
           enterusted with a particular job has to perform his
           duties honestly, e9iciently and in accordance with the
           rules. If he deviates from this path he is to su9er 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 o9icer 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
   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 re<ects on the seriousness of the authorities

concerned in pursuing the charges against the employee.


                                   Page 8 of 12
     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 o2icer, the said observation

would be subject to condition that the o2icer 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
   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 justi4ed 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 re<ects the

fact that the authorities were not at all serious in completing


                           Page 10 of 12
       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    4nancial

emoluments on account of the charge-sheet being set aside as

if the disciplinary proceedings were never initiated against

the petitioner.


(iii)     All 4nancial 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
        C/SCA/2352/2022                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 13/03/2026




  (iv)      Considering that the petitioner has been denied his

  complete retiral bene4ts 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 4nancial 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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: BHOOMI YOGESHBHAI MISTRY(HC01557), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/03/2026 12:21:29




                                                    Page 12 of 12