{"id":159387,"date":"1978-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978"},"modified":"2015-01-17T15:55:59","modified_gmt":"2015-01-17T10:25:59","slug":"b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","title":{"rendered":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1109, \t\t 1978 SCR (3) 553<\/div>\n
Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n
Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nB. J. SHELAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR 1109\t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 553\n 1978 SCC  (2) 202\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1988 SC 842\t (3,6)\n\n\nACT:\nBombay\tCivil Service Rules-r. 161(2)(ii) proviso-Scope\t of-\nGovernment  had power to withhold permission  for  voluntary\nretirement    if   departmental\t  proceedings\tare    under\ncontemplation-Government   servant   gave  due\t notice\t  of\nintention to retire-Order of suspension not communicated  to\nGovernment   servant  before   retirement-Communication\t  if\nincumbent-Government  if  competent  to\t take\tdisciplinary\naction after retirement.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRule 161(2)(ii) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules  provides\n: \"any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies may, by\ngiving\tnotice of not less than three months in\t writing  to\nthe Appointing Authority,retire from service .... and in any\nother case, after he has attained the age of 55 years.\nProvided that it shall be' open to the Appointing  Authority\nto withhold permission to retire to a Government servant who\nis   under   suspension,  or   against\t whom\tdepartmental\nproceedings  are pending or contemplated, and who  seeks  to\nretire under this sub-clause.\"\nDuring the pendency of certain appeals before the High Court\nfrom  the  decisions  of the appellant who  was\t a  Judicial\nOfficer\t  the  accused\tin  those  cases  filed\t  affidavits\nalleging  corruption on the part of the appellant.   In\t the\nmeantime on July 17, 1973 the appellant gave a notice  under\nr.  161 communicating his desire to retire on attaining\t the\nage of 55 years, on December 3, 1973.  On December 11,\t1973\npending finalisation of departmental proceedings which\twere\nunder  contemplation,  the  High Court\tsuspended  him\tfrom\nservice.\nThe  appellant's writ Petition challenging  the\t Governments\naction\tin  taking  disciplinary action\t against  him  after\nretirement  was\t dismissed by the High Court.\tThe  Special\nLeave Petition filed by him in this Court was allowed to  be\nwithdrawn reserving to him the right to agitate the question\nwhether disciplinary action could be taken against him after\nretirement.  Eventually, however, he was dismissed.\nOn  the question whether it was incumbent on the  Government\nto  communicate\t to the Government servant its\tdecision  to\nwithhold  permission  to  retire  on  one  of  the   grounds\nspecified in the proviso :\nHELD  :\t 1.  For  the proviso  to  become  operative  it  is\nnecessary  that\t the  Government  should  not  only  take  a\ndecision  but communicate it to the Government servant.\t  It\nis  not\t necessary that the communication should  reach\t the\nGovernment Servant. [558 E]\n2.  But for the proviso the right of the Government  servant\nto  retire  would  have\t been  absolute.   The\tproviso\t has\nrestricted  the\t right conferred on the\t Government  servant\nunder  it.  It is open to the Appointing Authority to  with-\nhold  permission  to retire when the Government\t servant  is\nunder suspension or departmental proceedings are pending  or\nan- contemplated against him. [557 C-E]\n3.The proviso contemplates positive action by the Appointing\nAuthority.   The words \"it shall be open to  the  Appointing\nAuthority to withhold permission\" in r. 161 proviso indicate\nthat the Appointing Authority has got an option to  withhold\npermission and that could be exercised by communicating\t its\nintention to withhold permission to the Government  servant.\nThe  Appointing Authority may have considered  the  question\nand  may  not  have taken a decision  either  way  or  after\nconsidering  the  facts\t of the case may have  come  to\t the\nconclusion that it is better to allow the Government servant\nto retire than take any action against him. [558 C-E]\n554\nDinesh\tChandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Orr.,<\/a> [1978]  1\nS.C.R. 607, distinguished.\nLewis & Allenby (1909) Ltd. v. Pegge; [1914] 1 Ch.  D.\t782;\nheld in applicable.\nState of Punjab v. Khemi Ram<\/a>; [1970] 2 S.C.R. 657; State  of\nPunjab v. Amar Singh Harika<\/a>; A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1313; referred\nto.\nIn  the\t instant  case it was incumbent\t on  the  Appointing\nAuthority  to  withhold permission to retire on one  of\t the\nconditions  mentioned in the proviso.  Admittedly the  order\nof  suspension\twas  not communicated  before  the  date  of\nretirement.  Therefore, disciplinary action cannot be  taken\nafter the date of his retirement. [558 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 923\/77.
\n(Appeal\t by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated
\n13-8-1.976 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 1216\/76).
\nV.  M. Tarkunde, P. H. Parekh, Manju Sharma and C. B.  Singh
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
D. V. Patel and S. P. Nayar for Respondent Nos.\t 1 & 2.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKAILASAM,  J.  This  appeal is preferred  by  special  leave
\nagainst the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 13th
\nAugust,\t 1976  dismissing  a  writ  petition  filed  by\t the
\nappellant  against  the\t order of dismissal  passed  by\t the
\nGovernment on 21st January 1976.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant B. J. Shelat was born on 4th December,  1918.
\nHe  joined as a Magistrate on 5th January, 1950 in the\tpre-
\nreorganized  State  of Bombay.\tOn the\tbifurcation  of\t the
\nState  of  Bombay on 1st May, 1960 he was  allotted  to\t the
\nState  of Gujarat as a Civil Judge and Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nFirst  Class.\tOn  4th November,  1961\t the  appellant\t was
\nappointed by the Governor of Guarat as a Magistrate for\t the
\ncity of Ahmedabad.  On 9th November, 1970 the appellant gave
\na notice of retirement to the Government of Gujarat  through
\nthe  Registrar of the High Court.  He intimated that  as  he
\nhad completed 50 years on 4th December, 1968 he intended  to
\nretire\tfrom 10th May 1971 if Rule 161 of the  Bombay  Civil
\nServices Rules permitted him to do so.\tThe Registrar of the
\nHigh  Court  replied to this notice on\t11th  January,\t1972
\ninforming the appellant that he may send a fresh application
\non the lines of his application dated 9th November, 1970.
\nThe  appellant\thad delivered several  judgments  under\t the
\nPrevention  of Food Adulteration Act during the period\t24th
\nJanuary,  1972 to 17th August, 1972.  These  judgments\twere
\ntaken  on  appeal to the High Court and in  the\t High  Court
\nduring\tthe period 19th June, 1973 to 10th August, 1973\t the
\naccused\t in the various cases relating to food\tadulteration
\nfiled affidavits alleging that they had paid some moneys  to
\n‘the appellant.\t When these appeals were pending, before the
\nHigh  Court on 17th July, 1973 the appellant gave  a  second
\nnotice under Rule 161 intimating his intention to retire  on
\nreaching the age
\n555<\/span>
\nof  55\tyears i.e. on 3rd December, 1973.   But\t before\t 3rd
\nDecember,  1973, the date on which the appellant was due  to
\nretire,\t the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, informed\t the
\npetitioner  on 23rd November, 1973 under the  directions  of
\nthe  Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court\t of  Gujarat
\ncalling\t upon  him  to submit  his  explanation\t as  regards
\nallegation made in the affidavits.  The appellant  submitted
\nhis  explanation on 26th November, 1973.  On 11th  December,
\n1973  the  High Court issued an order of suspension  as\t the
\nHigh Court ‘was of the view that it was desirable to suspend
\nthe   appellant\t  pending   finalisation   of\tdepartmental
\nproceedings against him which were under contemplation.
\nThe   appellant\t filed\ta  writ\t petition  challenging\t the
\njurisdiction of the.  Government to take disciplinary action
\nagainst\t him after retirement.\tThis petition was  dismissed
\nand a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was\talso
\ndismissed  on  24th December, 1973.  The appellant  filed  a
\nspecial\t leave petition in this Court against the  order  of
\ndismissal  of his writ petition by the High Court  and\tthis
\nCourt on 25th April, 1975 allowed the appellant to  withdraw
\nhis petition reserving his right to agitate the question  as
\nto  whether  disciplinary action can be\t taken\tagainst\t him
\nafter  retirement  when\t final orders  were  passed  in\t the
\ndisciplinary  inquiry  against\thim.   In  the\tmeantime   a
\nchargesheet was issued to the appellant by the High Court on
\n18th  .January, 1974 and the Inquiry Officer  submitted\t his
\nreport on 25th July, 1974 holding that the charges were\t not
\nproved.\t  But the High Court did not agree with the  report
\nof  the Inquiry Officer and directed the appellant  to\tshow
\ncause why a different view from that of the Inquiry  Officer
\nbe not taken.  On receipt of the appellant’s reply the\tHigh
\nCourt recommended the punishment of dismissal to the Govern-
\nment and the impugned order was passed by the Government  on
\n21st .January, 1976.  The appellant preferred writ  petition
\nto  the\t High Court and the High  Court\t by  its  judgment
\ndismissed  it  holding\tthat there is evidence\ton  which  a
\nreasonable  inference of guilt could be drawn and  therefore
\nit could not interfere with the order of dismissal.   Hence,
\nthe present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  V. M. Tarkunde, the learned counsel for the  appellant,
\nraised two contentions before, us.  He submitted that after
\nthe  passing  of  the impugned order  of  dismissal  by\t the
\nGovernment on 21st January, 1976 it has become necessary  to
\nquestion   the\tjurisdiction  of  the  authority   to\ttake
\ndisciplinary   action  against\tthe  appellant\t after\t his
\nretirement,  a question which was specifically reserved\t for
\nthe appellant by this Court.  Secondly, he submitted that on
\nthe merits there is no evidence on which a court can come to
\nthe conclusion that the charges that were framed against the
\nappellant had been established.\n<\/p>\n
We will proceed to consider the question of the jurisdiction
\nof  the ,authority to take disciplinary action\tagainst\t the
\nappellant after his retirement.\t It may be recalled that the
\nappellant  gave a notice intimating his intention to  retire
\non  17th  July, 1973 stating that he intended to  retire  on
\nreaching  the  age of 55 years on 3rd, December,  1973.\t  He
\nattained the age of 55 years on 3rd December, 1973 and it is
\ncommon\tground that the notice of suspension was  issued  by
\nthe
\n556<\/span>
\nHigh  Court  only on 11th December, 1973.   But\t before\t 3rd
\nDecember,  1973 it is admitted that a show-cause notice\t was
\nissued\ton 23rd November, 1973 by the Chief City  Magistrate
\nco  the\t directions  of\t the High  Court  calling  upon\t the
\npetitioner  to\tsubmit his, explanation\t and  the  appellant
\nsubmitted his explanation on 26th November, 1971.
\nRule.  161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules  provides\t for
\nthe  retirement of Government servants before attaining\t the
\nage of superannuation.\tRule 161(1)(aa) provides-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Notwithstanding anything contained in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)
\n\t      (1) An appointing authority shall, if he is of
\n\t      the opinion that it is in the public  interest
\n\t      so  to do, have the absolute right  to  retire
\n\t      any  Government  servant to which\t clause\t (a)
\n\t      applies by giving him notice of not less\tthan
\n\t      three  months in writing or three\t months\t pay
\n\t      and allowances
\n\t      in lieu of such notice :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      x\t      x\t       x
\n\t      Sub-rule (2) (ii) is, as follows :-
\n\t      “any  Government\tservant to whom\t clause\t (a)
\n\t      applies may, by giving notice of not less than
\n\t      three  months  in writing\t to  the  Appointing
\n\t      Authority,  retire from service x x x x x\t and
\n\t      in  any other case, after he has attained\t the
\n\t      age of 55 years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is no dispute that the Rule applicable is Rule  161(2)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  and  the appellant is entitled to retire by  giving  a
\nnotice\tof not less than 3 months after he has attained\t the
\nage of 55 years.  Under Rule 161 (1) (aa) (1) the appointing
\nauthority  has\tan absolute right to retire  any  Government
\nservant\t to  whom clause (a) applies in public\tinterest  by
\ngiving\thim notice of not less than three months in  writing
\nor  three months pay and allowances in lieu of such  notice.
\nBut  the Government servant has no such absolute  right.   A
\nright  is  conferred on the Government\tservant\t under\tRule
\n161(2) (ii) to retire, by giving not less than three  months
\nnotice on his attaining the prescribed age.  Such a right is
\nsubject\t to  the proviso which is incorporated to  the\tsub-
\nsection which reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Provided\t that  it  shall  be  open  to\t the
\n\t      appointing authority to withhold permission to
\n\t      retire  to a Government servant who  is  under
\n\t      suspension,   or\tagainst\t whom\tdepartmental
\n\t      proceedings  are pending or contemplated,\t and
\n\t      who seeks to retire under this sub-clause.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But  for  the  proviso a Government servant  would  be ,it
\nliberty\t to  retire  by giving not less\t than  three  months
\nnotice\tin writing to the appointing authority on  attaining
\nthe  prescribed age.  This position has been made  clear  by
\nthis  Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of  Assam\t and
\nOthers<\/a>(1) where the Court was considering the effect of\t the
\n(Assam) Fundamental Rule 56(c) which confers right
\n(1) [1978], C.R. 607.\n<\/p>\n
557<\/span><\/p>\n
on  the Government servant to voluntary retire.\t Rule  56(c)
\nof the (Assam) Fundamental Rules runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(c)  Any\t Government servant may,  by  giving
\n\t      notice  of  not  less  than  three  months  in
\n\t      writing  to the appropriate authority,  retire
\n\t      from service after he has attained the age  of
\n\t      fifty  years  or\thas completed  25  years  of
\n\t      service, whichever is earlier.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  a  construction  of the Rule this Court  held  that\t the
\ncondition of service which is envisaged in Rule 56(c) giving
\nan  option  in\tabsolute terms to a  Government\t servant  to
\nvoluntary  retire with three months’ previous notice,  after
\nhe  reaches  50 years of age or has completed  25  years  of
\nservice, cannot be equated with a contract of employment  as
\nenvisaged  in  Explanation 2 to Rule 119 of the\t Defence  of
\nIndia Rules and that Rule 56 is a statutory condition  which
\noperated   in  law  without  reference\tto  a  contract\t  of
\nemployment and when once the conditions of Fundamental\tRule
\n56(c) are fulfilled the Government servant must be held\t to
\nhave  lawfully\tretired.   But\tfor  the  proviso  to\tRule
\n161(2)(ii)  the\t decision of this Court in  the\t case  cited
\nabove  would  be applicable and the right  would  have\tbeen
\nabsolute.    But  the  proviso\thas  restricted\t the   right
\nconferred  on the Government servant.  Under the proviso  it
\nis  open to the appointing authority to withhold  permission
\nto  retire  to\ta Government servant when (1)  be  is  under
\nsuspension, or (2) against whom departmental proceedings are
\npending or contemplated.  Thus the permission to retire\t can
\nbe  withheld  by the appointing authority  either  when\t the
\nGovernment  servant  is\t under suspension  or  against\twhom
\ndepartmental  proceedings are pending or  contemplated.\t  It
\nwas submitted on behalf of the appellant that admittedly  he
\nwas  not under suspension on the date when he  attained\t the
\nage  of 55 years and that no departmental  proceedings\twere
\npending\t or contemplated against him as required  under\t the
\nproviso.  No departmental proceeding was pending but on\t the
\nfacts  one  cannot  say\t that a\t proceeding  was  not  under
\ncontemplation.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Tarkunde, the learned counsel for the appellant, further
\nsubmitted that in any event the appointing authority had not
\nchosen\tto withhold permission to retire before the date  of
\nsuperannuation.\t   It  was  submitted  on  behalf   of\t the
\nrespondent,  the  State of Gujarat, that a reading  of\tRule
\n161(2)\t(ii)  would show that a\t Government  servant  cannot
\nretire\twithout\t the specific.permission of  the  appointing
\nauthority  and as in this case no permission was granted  it
\nshould\tbe  held  that\tthe  appointing\t authority  withhold
\npermission to the Government servant to retire according  to
\nthe  proviso.  In support of this contention Mr. Patel,\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  for the State of Gujarat,  relied  on\t the
\ndecision in Lewis & Allenby (1909), Limited v. Pegge.(1)  In
\nthat case a limited company demised a residential flat for a
\nterm  of  years and the lessee covenanted not to  assign  or
\nunderlet  the premises without the consent of  the  company,
\nsuch consent not to be withheld in the case of a respectable
\nor  responsible\t person.   On 3rd  April,  1913\t the  lessee
\napplied to the Secretary of the company for leave to sub-let
\nto Higham a respectable and responsible person and asked
\n(1)  [1914] 1 Ch.  Division p.782.\n<\/p>\n
558<\/span><\/p>\n
to  know  by April 14 as Higham wanted\tpossession  on\tthat
\ndate.\tThe  Secretary\tforgot\tto  communicate\t  with\t his
\ndirectors.   On 14th April the lessee not having received  a
\nreply  sub-let\tto Higham and gave him\tpossession.   In  an
\naction:\t by the company to recover possession for breach  of
\nthe  covenant  the Court held that as consent is not  to  be
\nwithheld  in  the  case of  a  respectable  and\t responsible
\nperson, if the lessee applies for such consent and within  a
\nreasonable time that consent is not granted, then within the
\nmeaning\t of the covenant it is withheld and the lessee\twill
\nnot lose his property if he assigns to the person whose name
\nhe  has given to the landlord.\tOn the circumstances of\t the
\ncase  the Court Was of the view that the period between\t 3rd
\nApril  and 14th April was a reasonable time and inasmuch  as
\nno  intimation\twas made to him either way in  the  interval
\nthere  has been no breach of the covenant and the  sub-lease
\nto Higham was good.  We fall to understand how this decision
\nadvances  the contention of Mr. Patel.\tAs no  communication
\nwas  received  the  Court  held that  the  granting  of\t the
\npermission was a mere formality and that it had to be  taken
\nthat  the consent was granted.\tIn the case before us it  is
\nincumbent on the appointing authority to withhold permission
\nto  retire  on\tone  of the  conditions\t mentioned  in-\t the
\nproviso.  We ,ire of the view that the proviso contemplates
\na  positive action by the appointing authority.\t  The  words
\n“It  shall be open to the appointing authority\tto  withhold
\npermission” would indicate that the appointing authority has
\ngot  an\t option\t to withhold permission and  that  could  be
\nexercised   by\tcommunicating  its  intention  to   withhold
\npermission  to\tthe  Government\t servant.   The\t  appointing
\nauthority  may\thave Considered the question and  might\t not
\nhave  taken a decision either way or after  considering\t the
\nfacts of the case might have come to the conclusion that  it
\nis  better  to allow the Government servant to\tretire\tthan
\ntake  any  action against him.\tFor the\t proviso  to  become
\noperative  it  is necessary that the Government\t should\t not
\nonly  take a decision but communicate it to  the  Government
\nservant.  It is not necessary that the communication  should
\nreach  the  Government servant.\t As held by  this  Court  in
\nState  of Punjab v. Khemi Ram<\/a>(1) it will be,  sufficient  if
\nsuch  an  order is sent out and goes out of control  of\t the
\nappointing  authority  before  the  relevant  date.    After
\nreferring to the earlier decisions, the Court held that\t the
\nactual\tknowledge by the Government servant of an  order  of
\ndismissal  may\tperhaps\t become\t necessary  because  of\t the
\nconsequences  which the decision in the State of  Punjab  V.
\nAmar Singh Harika<\/a>(2) contemplated but an order of suspension
\nwhen  once issued and sent out to the  concerned  Government
\nservant\t must  be held to have been communicated  no  matter
\nwhen  he actually received it.\tThe question as to when\t the
\norder  should  be deemed to have been  communicated  is\t not
\nrelevant in this case as admittedly the order of  suspension
\nwas not communicated before the date of superannuation.
\nMr.  Patel  next  referred us to the  meaning  of  the\tword
\n“withhold”  in Webster’s Third New International  Dictionary
\nwhich  is  given  as  “hold back”  and\tsubmitted  that\t the
\npermission should be deemed to
\n(1)  [1970] 2 S.CR. 657.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.T.R: 1966 S.C. 1313.\n<\/p>\n
559<\/span><\/p>\n
have  been withheld if it is not communicated.\tWe  are\t not
\nable  to  read\tthe  meaning  of  the  word  “withhold”\t  as
\nindicating that in the absence of a communication is must be
\nunderstood as the permission having been withheld.
\nIt will be useful to refer to the analogous provision in the
\nFundamental   Rules  issued  by\t the  Government  of   India
\napplicable to the Central Government servants.\t Fundamental
\nRule  56(a)  provides that except as otherwise\tprovided  in
\nthis  Rule,  every  Government\tservant\t shall\tretire\tfrom
\nservice\t on  the afternoon of the last day of the  month  in
\nwhich lie attains the age of fifty-eight years.\t Fundamental
\nRule  56 (j) is similar to Rule 161 (aa) (1) of\t the  Bombay
\nCivil  Services\t Rules conferring an absolute right  on\t the
\nappropriate  authority\tto retire a  Government\t servant  by
\ngiving not less than three months notice.  Under Fundamental
\nRule 56(k) the Government servant is entitled to retire from
\nservice after he has attained the age of fifty-five years by
\ngiving\tnotice of not less than three months in\t writing  to
\nthe  appropriate authority on attaining the  age  specified.
\nBut proviso (b) to sub-rule 56(k) states that it is open  to
\nthe  appropriate  authority  to\t withhold  permission  to  a
\nGovernment  servant  under suspension who  seeks  to  retire
\nunder this clause.  Thus under the fundamental Rules  issued
\nby the Government of India also the right of the  Government
\nservant to retire is not an absolute right but is subject to
\nthe proviso wherever the appropriate authority may  withhold
\npermission  to a Government servant under suspension.  On  a
\nconsideration  of  Rule 161(2) (ii) and the proviso  we\t are
\nsatisfied  that\t it  is\t incumbent  on\tthe  Government\t  to
\ncommunicate  to\t the  Government  servant  its\tdecision  to
\nwithhold permission to retire on one of the ground specified
\nin the proviso.\n<\/p>\n
In the view we have taken that the appointing authority\t has
\nno  jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against  a
\nGovernment servant who had effectively retired, the question
\nas  LO whether the High Court was right in holding that\t the
\ndisciplinary authority had sufficient grounds for dismissing
\nthe  appellant\tdoes not arise.’ ‘The Inquiry  Officer\theld
\nthat  the charges had not been established as the  witnesses
\nwho   made  allegations\t against  the  appellant  in   their
\naffidavits  failed to appear before it.\t The High  Court  or
\nthe  administrative side came to a different  conclusion  on
\nexamining the record relating to three criminal cases  where
\nthe  accused  pleaded  guilty  but  the\t appellant-did\t not
\npronounce  his\tjudgment  and postponed it  to\tsome  months
\nthereafter.  In one case the accused pleaded guilty on\t16th
\nDecember,  1971\t but  the judgment was\tpronounced  on\t21St
\nMarch, 1972.  In the second case the accused pleaded  guilty
\non  23rd December, 1971 and the judgment was  pronounced  on
\n24th January, 1972 and in the third case the plea of  guilty
\nwas  on 26th June, 1972 and the judgment was  pronounced  on
\n17th   August,\t1972.\tThe  High  Court   observed   “While
\nexercising  our jurisdiction under Article 226, we  are\t not
\nconcerned  with the adequacy of evidence.  All that we\thave
\nto  see is whether there is evidence on which  a  reasonable
\ninference could be drawn.” In the circumstances of the case,
\nthe High Court was of the
\n560<\/span>
\nview  that it was not called upon to interfere.\t As  already
\nstated,\t as  we\t have  come  to\t the  conclusion  that\t the
\ndisciplinary  action cannot be taken after the date  of\t his
\nretirement,  we refrain from expressing any opinion  on\t the
\ncorrectness   of  the  decision\t taken\tby  the\t  appointing
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
In  the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned  order
\nand  the  judgment of the High Court are set  aside.   There
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R
\n\t\t\t      Appeal allowed,
\n77SCI\/78-GIPF.\n<\/p>\n
561<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1109, 1978 SCR (3) 553 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: B. J. SHELAT Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1978 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\"},\"wordCount\":3063,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\",\"name\":\"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978","datePublished":"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978"},"wordCount":3063,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978","name":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T10:25:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-j-shelat-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-28-march-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}