STATE OF GUJARAT v. GAJANAND M. DALWADI (D) BY L.RS

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 913

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

STATE OF GUJARAT v. GAJANAND M. DALWADI (D) BY L.RS.pdf

Judgment text

~ STATE OF GUJARAT v. GAJANAND M. DALWADI (D) BY L. RS. DECEMBER 14, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ] Service Law-Removalfrom service-On the charge offorgery ofa licence-Punishment held not justified by State Civil Services Tribunal on the ground that delinquent officer forged the licence at 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 -Equity is such case has no role to play-Interference with the quantum ofpunishment ordinarily is notpermissible; unless it is held to be wholly disproportionate to the imputation ofcharges-Equity. Respondent (deceased delinquent officer) was employed in the department ofGrant ofLicnece in the Regional Transport Office of the appellant-State.

At the relevant time, he was serving in the Accounts Department. In the course ofan 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 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. Inwrit appeal, Division Bench ofHigh Court upheld the order of the tribunal, holding that though the delinquent had acted designedly, he might not have understood the nature ofwork or manner oftransacting it. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Tribunal as also the Division Bench ofthe High ... Court, misdirected themselves in law, as they posed unto themselves wrong questions. Forgery ofa 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 employee concerned has denied that the licence was issued at his instance. Misconduct, ofsuch a magnitude, when proved, cannot be ignored on surmises and conjectures. Equity, in a case ofthis 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 unlawful loss to another, the matter should be viewed seriously. [Paras 8, 9 and 10) [918-B-E) 2. Once, itwas held that the delinquent had acted designedly, it could not have also been held that he might not have understood the nature ofwork or manner oftransacting it, since it was not his 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 ofthe 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, therefore, he knew about the modalities of grant of licence. An application for grant oflicence must be processed having regard to the provisions of the Central Motor Vchicles Rules. Issuance of a 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 ofthe Tribunal. [Para 12] [918-G-H; 919-A-C) 3. The tribunal not being an appellate 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 ofcharges.

Ifordinarily in regard to the commission of the offence offorgery, an order of dismissal/ removal is an appropriate punishment, the same could not have been sidetracked. [Para 10] [918-E-F) UP. SR. TC. v. RamKishanArora, (2007)6SCALE 721;Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank andAnr. , (2007) 8 SCALE 240 and UCO Bank andAnr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007] 6 SCC 694, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2006. 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. Yashank Adhyaru and Hemantika Wahi for the Appellants. H. K. Puri for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Gajanand M. Dalwadi, since deceased (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 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 at the relevant point oftime, he was possessing a valid driving licence. 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. 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, ifany, was committed by him at the request ofanother clerk; viz. one Dudhrechia. It was further held; "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 ofappellant 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 oftime. 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 mis-conduct ofthe staff. The appellant is not a chip ofdead 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 punishment is proper. " 4. A learned Single Judge ofthe 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. The learned Single Judge held that the decision ofthe Tribunal resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting the Court's intervention under the supervisoryjurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia stating; "It is evident that on the date when Driver Narendra Kumar met with the accident, he did not possess a valid driving licence. In the circumstances the owner ofthe 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 ofa duplicate licence in the name of driver-Narendra Kumar for the period covering the date ofthe 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 this fraudulent scheme by issuing duplicate licence. Indisputably, it was neither the function ofthe delinquent to issue such licence nor was it his defence that the said licence was issued by him at the request ofthe 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 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. 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 with an ulterior intention to issue bogus licence at a later date. In absence ofeven 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 oftime thereafter is of no consequence. 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 ofthe inquiry officer, the delinquent has not made out any case based on the evidence on record. Even the said reply is evasive. " 5. The Division Bench ofthe 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 designedly. After all, he may not have understood the nature of work and manner oftransacting 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. " (emphasis supplied) 6. Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellant submitted that the approach ofthe Division Bench ofthe High Court is wholly erroneous and thus is liable to be set aside. 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 ofa colleague, even if it be so assumed. As noticed hereinbefore, even the employee concerned has denied that the licence was issued at his instance. 9. The learned Tribunal as also the Division Bench ofthe High Court, with respect, misdirected themselves in law, as they posed unto themselves wrong questions. Misconduct, ofsuch a magnitude, when proved, cannot be ignored on surmises and conjectures. Equity, in a case ofthis 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 himselfor to cause unlawful loss to another, the matter should be viewed seriously. The Tribunal is not an appellate authority, its jurisdiction was also limited.

It could not have ordinarily interfered with the quantum ofpunishment unless it was held to be wholly disproportionate to the imputation of charges. Ifordinarily in regard to the commission ofthe offence offorgery, an Order ofdismissal/removal is an appropriate punishment; as has been held in a large number ofcase, 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. 11. The approach ofthe 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 STATEv. GAJANANDM. DALWADl(D)BYL. RS. 919 .. had been working in the accounts.

Finding offact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer which was accepted by the learned Single Judge, was that the issuance oflicence, which it was not his job, was itselfa misconduct. The Division Bench ofthe High Court clearly overlooked the fact that it is the positive case ofthe 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 ofgrant 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 ofthe Rules. Issuance ofa forged licence, having regard to the said provisions, is a serious matter, which could not have been ignored on the ipse dixit ofthe Tribunal. 13.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. No costs. K. K. T. Appeal allowed.