DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMUKESHKUMAR BAVANJIBHAI PARGI

      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 the 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 or order
           and be pleased to;

(b)        To quash and set aside the order and award passed by the
           Labour Court in Ref (LCR) No.49/2018 dated 22.11.2019 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 the 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 that the employee
was serving with employer as a driver and his services 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 was intoxicated,
due to which Criminal Case No.378/2015 was 8led before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Gondal whereby he was acquitted by the
learned Magistrate and despite this fact, the petitioner 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 petitioner
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 memo of petition
and has also submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the
services       without   initiating    any      inquiry    and/or     departmental


                                      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 petitioner is
harsh and disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and,
therefore, instead of terminating the petitioner from the services, he
could have been put in original post or stopped increment for future
eFect, however, straightway the order of termination was passed and,
therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed and set
aside.


5.1        Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has further submitted that the
Labour Court has recorded the 8nding that the charges were proved
against the petitioner, which fact is unjust, illegal and arbitrary and
against the settled principles of law. Over-and-above, the grounds
agitated in the memo of petition, Ms.Chhaya, learned counsel has
submitted that the impugned award passed by the               Labour Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition 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 2024 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 Gujarat, 2025

                                   Page 3 of 10
       C/SCA/5796/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 06/03/2026




            (3) GLR 1787;
(iv)        Hajabhai Markhibhia Nandaniya Vs. District Agriculture OHcer,
            2026 JX (Guj) 13;
(v)         Jyotindrasinh Hemuba Vaghela Vs. Divisional Controller 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 registered before the
Gondal Police Station. He has submitted that the defence 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 not informed the
conductor with regard to his sickness nor had he informed any of the
authorized person at S.T. Bus Depot. He has submitted that on the
contrary, the petitioner abandoned the bus upto Gondal 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 eyes 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 submitted that in
fact, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner
where also he has not produced any evidence with regard 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 of the petitioner and
the Labour Court has con8rmed the order passed by the 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 Court admitted
Special Civil Application No.5796 of 2020 on 11.01.2021 and on
14.08.2020, Special Civil Application No. 9351 of 2020 also admitted
and granted interim relief.


8.         Having considered the facts and circumstances of the 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 while passing
             the impugned award where the reference of the employee was
             dismissed and order of punishment imposed by the employer
             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 charge levelled
against the employee, it appears that on 30.09.2014, while the
employee was on duty on the route from Jhalod to Jasdan, 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 Civil 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 documentary
evidence to prove the charge levelled against him was illegal and
unjust and he failed to produce any documentary evidence. It was
also the contention of the employee before the disciplinary authority
that he being permanent employee of the Corporation and, therefore,
the disciplinary proceedings provided under the standing 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 services which itself
is against the settled principles of law and principles of natural justice.
The said fact is not justi8ed as petitioner was appointed on probation
and he has not completed the probation period and, therefore, till
completion of probation period, the petitioner cannot be considered
as permanent employee. However, the disciplinary authority has
issued show-cause notice against which the petitioner 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 driver 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 the part of the
employee and, therefore, the order of dismissal or removal 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 of 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 was 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 concerned 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 criminal case are on
diFerent footing and such evidence of the criminal case is required to
be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

10.      It appears that on the basis of the complaint, the 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 proceedings, the
petitioner was given proper opportunity to lead evidence, however, he
has neither led any evidence to challenge the legality and validity of
the inquiry nor raised any objection nor challenged the same before
the Labour Court and, therefore, the order of punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority is disproportionate or harsh. The Labour
Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11A, has found
that the order of punishment was disproportionate to the charge and
under that circumstances, the Labour Court can interfere 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 Court 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 Depot against the
employee for the oFence under Section 66(1)A r/w. Section 85(1) and
(3) of the Prohibition Act, for which he was charge-sheeted and
merely because the employee was acquitted by the competent 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 present 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 No. GJ-18-Y-9109
and he got down from the bus and, therefore, the conductor 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 two years was the
probation period and during the probation, if the employee commits
any irregularity or misconduct, he will be removed from the services
and, therefore, considering the said fact and misconduct 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, the 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 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 ,rm adherence to a code of moral
           values.”


13.      On perusal of the impugned award, it clearly transpires 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 petitions deserve to
 be dismissed.

 14.        In view of the above and considering aforesaid facts and
 circumstances of the case and the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble
 Supreme Court as well as this Court, the present petitions are devoid
 of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.

 15.        In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule 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 Application No.5756 of
 2020, Special Civil Application No.9351 of 2020 stands 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


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




                                                        Page 10 of 10