RAFIQ MOHAMMAD BABUBHAI GANJAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/13922/2014                               ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13922 of 2014

=============================================
                  RAFIQ MOHAMMAD BABUBHAI GANJA
                                Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT FOR MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                           Date : 24/02/2026
                            ORAL ORDER


1.     Heard Mr.Bhuvnesh Gahlot, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Ms.Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the
State respondents.

2.     The present petition is 8led under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :


        “A) Be pleased to allow this Petition;

        B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction
        and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated
        11.04.2014 passed by the respondent no.2;

        C) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction
        upon the respondent authorities and be pleased to quash
        and set aside the impugned order dated 08/11.04.2008
        passed by the respondent No.2, by which the order dated
        30.10.2007 passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal
        preferred by the petitioner came to be con(rmed and the
        petitioner was placed in the original pay scale for a period
        of two years with future e)ect and the period between the
        order of compulsory retirement and reinstatement was
        ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave;




                                  Page 1 of 3
     C/SCA/13922/2014                              ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




        D) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction
        upon the respondent authorities and be pleased to direct
        the respondents to regularize the suspension period of
        18.01.1985 to 20.06.2000 as in service and to release all
        the consequential bene(ts       including promotion and
        seniority;”



3.     At the outset, Ms.Sukhadwala, learned AGP has pointed
out to this Court that the present petition may not be
entertained by this Court, inasmuch                as the punishment
substituted by the Appellate Authority was at the instance of
the petitioner. Learned AGP has drawn the attention of this
Court to the fact that before the Appellate Authority the
original petitioner had requested to substitute the order of
punishment of compulsory retirement with stoppage of
increment with future e?ect. Accordingly, the Appellate
Authority has substituted the punishment whereby it imposed
a penalty of stoppage of two increments with future e?ect.

4.     Per     contra,   Mr.Gahlot,      learned   advocate        for       the
petitioner is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid fact
as recorded in the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 passed
by the Appellate Authority – respondent No.2 herein.

5.     Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated
30.10.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority wherein the
following submission/request of the petitioner has been
recorded :

        “It is the humble submission of the helpless employee of
        the lowest rank that instead of compulsory retirement, if a
        minor penalty such as stoppage of future increments etc. is
        imposed, it would be su5cient."



                                 Page 2 of 3
         C/SCA/13922/2014                                                                ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026




 6.         When the original petitioner himself requested the
 Appellate Authority to substitute the penalty from compulsory
 retirement to stoppage of increment with future e?ect and
 apropos              to      such          request            the        Appellate               Authority              has
 substituted the punishment, accordingly, I do not 8nd any
 merit in the petition.


 7.         It appears that the order impugned was passed with the
 consent of the original petitioner who changed his mind later
 in point of time upon receipt of the impugned order.


 8.         In view of the aforesaid facts and for the foregoing
 reasons, this Court would not like to exercise its extraordinary
 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
 favour of such a petitioner who accepted the guilt before the
 authority and agreed to accept the penalty.


 9.         In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition
 being meritless, is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
 Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.


                                                                                (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
 GAURAV J THAKER
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/02/2026 15:19:54




                                                          Page 3 of 3