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

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
GAJANAND M. DAL WADI (D) BY L.RS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Removal from service-On the charge of forgery 
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 of a colleague-Single Judge of High Court setting aside 
the order of Tribunal-Division Bench of High Court upheld the order 
of Tribunal-On appeal, held: Interference with the quantum of 
punishment not justified-Forgery being a misconduct of grave 
magnitude, if proved, cannot be ignored on surmises and conjectures D 
-Equity is such case has no role to play-Interference with the 
quantum of punishment 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 
E 
department of Grant ofLicnece in the Regional Transport Office of 
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 of work 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 V chicles 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. If ordinarily 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.