http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2322 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of Gujarat

RESPONDENT: Gajanand M. Dalwadi (D) by Lrs.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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 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.   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;

\02315. 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.

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 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  punishment is proper.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

4.     A learned Single Judge of the said 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 of the Tribunal resulted in miscarriage of  justice warranting the Court\022s intervention under the supervisory jurisdiction  conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India  stating;       \023It 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 of the vehicle Sugarmal  Bherumal, could not have claimed insurance  money for the damage caused to the vehicle.    With a view to facilitating the insurance claim,  the said Sagarmal Bherumal arranged for  issuance of a duplicate licence in 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 by  the owner Sagarmal Bherumal 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 of the  delinquent to issue such licence nor 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 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 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.

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.\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

5.      The Division Bench of the High Court, however, on an appeal  preferred by the delinquent officer, allowed the said appeal holding;

\023Yes, 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 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.\024

                       (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.    

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 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 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 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, the same could not  have been sidetracked.   See U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ram Kishan Arora, [2007 (6)  SCALE 721],    Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank and  Anr. [2007(8)SCALE240] and UCO Bank and Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor  [(2007) 6 SCC 694].

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 had been  working in the accounts.   Finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer  which was accepted by the learned Single Judge, was that the issuance of  licence, 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, 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 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 Rules.   

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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..