STATE OF GUJARATversusGAJANAND M. DALWADI (D) BY L.RS.

~                         STATE OF GUJARAT                              A
                                    v.
                GAJANAND M. DAL WADI (D) BY L.RS.

                          DECEMBER 14, 2007
                                                                        B
            [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]


          Service Law-Removal from service-On the charge offorgery
    of a licence-Punishment held not justified by State Civil Services
    Tribunal on the ground that delinquent officer forged the licence at c
    the instance ofa colleague-Single Judge ofHigh Court setting aside
    the order ofTribunal-Division Bench ofHigh Court upheld the order
    of Tribunal-On appeal, held: Interference with the quantum of
    punishment not justified-Forgery being a misconduct of grave
    magnitude, ifproved, cannot be ignored on surmises and conjectures D
    -Equity is such case has no role to play-Interference with the
    quantum ofpunishment ordinarily is not permissible; unless it is held
    to be wholly disproportionate to the imputation of charges-Equity.

          Respondent (deceased delinquent officer) was employed in the
    department of Grant ofLicnece in the Regional Transport Office of E
    the appellant-State. At the relevant time, he was serving in the
    Accounts Department. In the course of an inspection in the Licence
    Branch, authorities noticed several misconducts including grant of
    forged licence, committed by the respondent. After disciplinary
    proceedings, charges were proved against him and his removal from F
    service was directed. Respondent filed an application before Gujarat
    Civil Services Tribunal. The same was allowed holding that he had
    issued the licence at the instance of another employee. Writ Petition
    filed by the State was allowed. In writ appeal, Division Bench of High
    Court upheld the order of the tribunal, holding that though the G
    delinquent had acted designedly, he might not have understood the
    nature ofwork or manner of transacting it. Hence the present appeal.
        Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                   913                                  H
    914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A      HELD: 1. The Tribunal as also the Division Bench of the High         ...
  Court, misdirected themselves in law, as they posed unto themselves
  wrong questions. Forgery of a licence is a serious charge. It cannot
  be condoned only because it has been done at the instance of a
  colleague, even if it be so assumed. But in the instant case the
B employee concerned has denied that the licence was issued at his
  instance. Misconduct, of such a magnitude, when proved, cannot be
  ignored on surmises and conjectures. Equity, in a case of this nature,
  would have no role to play. When a forgery is committed with a view
  to assist a person to make unlawful gain for himself or to cause
c unlawful loss to another, the matter should be viewed
  seriously. [Paras 8, 9 and 10) [918-B-E)

       2. Once, it was held that the delinquent had acted designedly,
  it could not have also been held that he might not have understood
  the nature of work or manner of transacting it, since it was not his
D function as he had been working in the accounts. Finding of fact
  arrived at by the Enquiry Officer which was accepted by the Single
  Judge of High Court was that the issuance ofliccncc, which it was
  not his job, was itself a misconduct. The Division Bench of the High
  Court clearly overlooked the fact that it is the positive case of the
E State that the delinquent officer was working in the Licence
  Department prior to his transfer to the Accounts Department and,
  therefore, he knew about the modalities of grant of licence. An
  application for grant of licence must be processed having regard to
  the provisions of the Central Motor Vchicles Rules. Issuance of a
F forged licence, having regard to Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules, is a
  serious matter, which could not have been ignored on the ipse dixit
  of the Tribunal. [Para 12] [918-G-H; 919-A-C)

       3. The tribunal not being an appellate authority, its jurisdiction
G was also limited. It could not have ordinarily interfered with the
  quantum of punishment unless it was held to be wholly
  disproportionate to the imputation of charges. Ifordinarily in regard
  to the commission of the offence of forgery, an order of dismissal/
  removal is an appropriate punishment, the same could not have been
  sidetracked. [Para 10] [918-E-F)
H
      STATEv. GAJANANDM.DALWADI(D)BYL.RS.                             915
                    [SINHA,J.]
     UP.SR.TC. v.RamKishanArora, (2007)6SCALE 721;Ramesh A
Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr., (2007) 8 SCALE
240 and UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007] 6 SCC
694, relied on.
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2322 of
2006.                                                      B
    From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2004 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 593 of
2004 in Special Civil Application No. 6283 of2000.
     Y ashank Adhyaru and Hemantika Wahi for the Appellants.                c
     H.K. Puri for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Gajanand M. Dalwadi, since deceased D
(delinquent officer) was working in the Regional Transport Office under
the Commissioner of Transport in the State of Gujarat. He had been
working in the Department for Grant of Licence. At the relevant time,
however, he was serving in the Accounts Department as a Summary Clerk.
    2. An inspection was conducted in the Licence Branch of the E
Regional Transport Office during the period 21.8.1995 to 13.9.1995.
      3. Several misconducts committed by the delinquent officer came
to the notice of the authorities. It was found that a forged license was
granted to one Narendra Kumar who had met with an accident although F
at the relevant point of time, he was possessing a valid driving licence. A
chargesheet was issued against him. Upon holding a disciplinary
proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted a Report on 6.12.1997 stating
that the charges against him have been proved. The disciplinary authority
directed his removal from service by an Order dated 26.10.1998. G
Aggrieved by the said Order imposing punishment upon him, he filed an
application before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. The said application
was allowed holding that misconduct on his part, if any, was committed
by him at the request of another clerk; viz. one Dudhrechia. It was further
held;                                                                        H
    916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A          "15. From the Department, it is submitted that Dudhrechia has
           denied entrusting the work to appellant but as stated above
           Dudhrechia would never admit and the submission of appellant gets
           credence that this is not an after thought in the appeal but it was
           put to the concerned clerk at the enquiry, at first in point of time.
B
           16. Also the order is too harsh. The Disciplinary Authority must
           given reasons why it is proper to pass such orders. In the Discipline
           Appeals and Rules providing for major penalties step by step, the
           punishments are given with a view that penalty must be
           inconsonance with the act complained or charges proved or the
c          mis-conduct of the staff. The appellant is not a chip of dead wood
           that he must be removed. Also punishment such as harsh as this
           would also required (sic) to consider rising an employment in the
           state. Not that we want to protect dishonest or bad people but
           reasons must be given and satisfaction must be reached that this
D          punishment is proper."
        4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition
  filed by the appellant holding that the delinquent had all the opportunities
  to reply to the chargesheet and take part in the disciplinary proceeding.
E The learned Single Judge held that the decision of the Tribunal resulted in
  miscarriage of justice warranting the Court's intervention under the
  supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227
  of the Constitution oflndia stating;
           "It is evident that on the date when Driver Narendra Kumar met
F          with the accident, he did not possess a valid driving licence. In the
           circumstances the owner of the vehicle Sugarrnal Bherumal, could
           not have claimed insurance money for the damage caused to the
           vehicle. With a view to facilitatmg the insurance claim, the said
           Sagarrnal Bhemmal arranged for issuance of a duplicate licence in
G          the name of driver-Narendra Kumar for the period covering the
           date of the accident. Indisputably, the duplicate licence was issued
           by the delinquent. Obviously, the duplicate licence was obtained
           py the owner Sagarrnal Bhemmal with an intention to defraud the
           insurance Company. The delinquent played an Important role in
H          this fraudulent scheme by issuing duplicate licence. Indisputably, it
      STATEv. GAJANANDM.DALWADI(D)BYL.RS.                            917
                    [SINHA,J.]
       was neither the function of the delinquent to issue such licence nor A
       was it his defence that the said licence was issued by him at the
       request of the concerned Clerk Shri Dudhrejia or any other officer.
       Such defence was taken by the delinquent at a much later stage in
       the disciplinary inquiry, though unsuccessfully.
       It is quite possible that apart from the delinquent, there were other B
       persons involved in the aforesaid fraudulent scheme and a further
       inquiry could have revealed the names of the other persons
       involved. However, merely because further inquiry was not made,
       the delinquent cannot be exonerated even though by evidence on
       record the charge against him has been proved.                        c
       As to the second charge, there is no denial by the delinquent that
       he had left certain licence numbers blank while issuing the licence
       numbers. He has not even explained why such blanks were
       maintained nor he has denied that the said blanks were maintained D
       with an ulterior intention to issue bogus licence at a later date. In
       absence of even a bare denial, the charge has rightly been held to
       be proved by the disciplinary authority. The fact that no licence
       was issued in the said numbers at any point of time thereafter is of
       no consequence.                                                       E
      Even the third charge has been proved by the statement of the
      concerned persons i.e. Shri B.K. Chauhan and Shri N.P. Ptni. It
      should also be noted that even in answer to the report of the inquiry
      officer, the delinquent has not made out any case based on the
      evidence on record. Even the said reply is evasive."                  F
     5. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, on an appeal
preferred by the delinquent officer, allowed the said appeal holding;
      "Yes, the deceased Gajanand Dalwadi should have been more
      careful while preparing the duplicate licence, he may have acted G
      designedly. After all, he may not have understood the nature of
      work and manner of transacting it since it was not his function since
      he was working in the accounts. Therefore, the conclusions drawn
      by the Tribunal were justified and there could be no reason to
      upturn them."                                                         H
    918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A                                                        (emphasis supplied)
          6. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, the learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellant submitted that the approach of the Division Bench
    of the High Court is wholly erroneous and thus is liable to be set aside.
B        7. Mr. H.K. Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
    respondent, on the other hand, would support the judgment.
        8. Forgery of a licence is a serious charge. It cannot be condoned
  only because it has been done at the instance of a colleague, even if it be
  so assumed. As noticed hereinbefore, even the employee concerned has
C denied that the licence was issued at his instance.
        9. The learned Tribunal as also the Division Bench of the High Court,
  with respect, misdirected themselves in law, as they posed unto themselves
  wrong questions. Misconduct, of such a magnitude, when proved, cannot
D be ignored on surmises and conjectures. Equity, in a case of this nature,
  would have no role to play.
        10. When a forgery is committed with a view to assist a person to
  make unlawful gain for himself or to cause unlawful loss to another, the
  matter should be viewed seriously. The Tribunal is not an appellate
E authority, its jurisdiction was also limited. It could not have ordinarily
  interfered with the quantum of punishment unless it was held to be wholly
  disproportionate to the imputation of charges. If ordinarily in regard to
  the commission of the offence of forgery, an Order of dismissal/removal
  is an appropriate punishment; as has been held in a large number of case,
F the same could not have been sidetracked. See UP.SR.TC. v. Ram
  Kishan Arora, (2007) 6 SCALE 721, Ramesh Chandra Sharma v.
  Punjab National Bank and Anr., (2007) 8 SCALE240 and UCO Bank
  and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694.
G        11. The approach of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion was
    the correct one.
         12. Once, it was held that the delinquent had acted designedly, it
    could not have also been held that he might not have understood the nature
    of work or manner of transacting it, since it was not his function as he
H
          STATEv. GAJANANDM.DALWADl(D)BYL.RS.                            919
                        [SINHA, J.]
..   had been working in the accounts. Finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry A
     Officer which was accepted by the learned Single Judge, was that the
     issuance oflicence, which it was not his job, was itself a misconduct. The
     Division Bench of the High Court clearly overlooked the fact that it is the
     positive case of the State that the delinquent officer was working in the
     Licence Department prior to his transfer to the Accounts Department and, B
     therefore, he knew about the modalities of grant oflicence. An application
     for grant oflicence must be processed having regard to the provisions of
     the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. An application in Form 4 is required
     to be filed as envisaged under Rule 14. Only, upon proper scrutiny thereof,
     a licence could be granted in Form 6 as envisaged under Rule 16 of the C
     Rules. Issuance of a forged licence, having regard to the said provisions,
     is a serious matter, which could not have been ignored on the ipse dixit
     of the Tribunal.
          13. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned Judgment cannot
     be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. No costs. D
     K.K.T.                                                 Appeal allowed.