Equality Under Article 14 Can’t Be Enforced In Negative Manner: Gujarat High Court Upholds Termination Of Station Fire Officers By Municipal Corporation

The Gujarat High Court has upheld the termination of Station Fire Officers by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) who were accused of procuring training by producing fake documents.

The Court was deciding a batch of Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Single Judge, which set aside the Order of termination by the AMC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani held, “The concept of “equality”, as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution, is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Hence, the punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of discrimination. Nonetheless, it assured to us by learned advocate Mr.Virk appearing for the appellant-Corporation, that apposite steps will also be taken against all such employees, who have procured the training by producing fake Sponsorship Letters.”

The Bench observed that an illegality or irregularity cannot be a ground to claim equality or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Advocate G.H. Virk appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta and Advocate Sahil M. Shah appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

Pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2018 for filling up the post of Station Fire Officer, the Respondents applied for the same. One of the qualifications, as mentioned in the advertisement, was that a candidate must possess Station Officer’s Course of Training at the National Fire Service College (NFSC), Nagpur. Accordingly, the Respondents were declared successful in the recruitment process and appointed as Station Fire Officers in 2019. Due to some private complaint received, the Appellant-AMC called upon the Respondents in 2022 to provide the evidence regarding their entry into the NFSC. While the Respondents were on probation, show-cause notices (SCNs) were issued in 2023 for termination of their service.

The Respondents assailed the same by filing Writ Petitions before the High Court, which directed the Appellant to conduct a departmental inquiry in accordance with Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. Consequently, the Appellant issued chargesheets for holding the inquiry for an alleged illegal entry in the NFSC, by producing false recommendations. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer held the charges as proved. A final SCN was then issued to the Respondents, which was challenged via Writ Petition and the same was disposed of, directing the Appellant to accept the representation of the Respondents opposing the departmental proceedings against them. Thereafter, final Orders of punishment terminating the services of the Respondents were passed. This was challenged by them and the Single Judge allowed their Writ Petition. Being aggrieved, the AMC filed Appeals.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The learned Single Judge fell in error in setting aside the termination order by exclusively placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel (supra). In fact, the appellant-Corporation, before the learned Single Judge, has categorically raised the contention about fraud having been done by the respondents, however, the learned Single Judge has rejected such contention by recording that it was impermissible for the Corporation to conduct a departmental inquiry to invalidate the admissions and certificates as the same is beyond its authority.”

The Court reiterated that any appointment which is secured surreptitiously is illegal and void ab initio, and since the appointment is void ab intio, the appointee/selectee cannot be said to be civil servants, therefore holding the disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules shall not arise.

“In the present case, the respondents, who were still probationers, have at every stage questioned the inquiry, right from inception, by filing three writ petitions, and ultimately a full-fledged departmental inquiry was held, though before the Vigilance Officer they have admitted that they have no documents to prove their sponsorship. Thus, we find that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the settled legal precedent and the reliance placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel (supra) will not apply to the case of the respondents”, it noted.

The Court remarked that there cannot be any cavil on the proposition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the Judgments, on which reliance is placed by the Respondents, however, in light of nature of misconduct committed by the Respondents, rendering their initial appointment as non-est and void ab-initio, the ratio emerging from such decisions will not come to their rescue.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals, quashed the impugned Judgment, and upheld the termination order.

Cause Title- Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Shaikh Asif Ahmed Mohammed Hanif (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:41620-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates G.H. Virk and Simranjitsingh H. Virk.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, Advocates Sahil M. Shah, Sanket K. Pandya, and K.M. Antani.

Click here to read/download the Judgment