K.S. Basathia vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 16597 Guj

     C/SCA/9566/2008                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9566 of 2008


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV                      sd/-

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO to see the judgment ?

2       To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                        NO

3       Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy              NO
        of the judgment ?

4       Whether this case involves a substantial question              NO

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== K.S. BASATHIA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR BHAVYARAJ GOHIL, ADVOCATE FOR MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the

MR MEET THAKKAR, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 22/10/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"25(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt. 22.5.2008

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

and order dt.11.10.2005 and direct the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits with 12% interest."

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was appointed in the Gujarat Administrative

Services, Class-I, in December 1989. During his posting as Deputy

District Development Officer, Amreli, the petitioner was placed under

suspension on 05.08.1992. After about one year, on 16.07.1993, the

petitioner was served with a charge sheet for holding a departmental

inquiry. The charges in brief were as under:

Charge-I Shri K.S.Basathia, former Deputy District Development Officer, Amreli has committed serious misconduct amounting moral turpitude and unbecoming of a Govt. Servant with the trainee nurses, mentioned in the statement of imputation, of Female Health Workers Nursing School, Amreli and has, thereby, violated Rules 3(1)(3) of Gujarat State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971.

Charge-II He has misused different Govt. Vehicles for his personal work as mentioned in the statement of imputation and in order to conceal it, he made false entries in the logbook for travelling during period 11.07.1992 to 14.07.1992 in the vehicle No. 6438 and prepared a false record and has shown dishonesty in receiving daily travelling allowances wrongfully whereby has committed fraud with the Government in violation of Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 for which he is responsible.

2.2 The appellant filed reply dated 24.11.1993 and denied the charges.

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

The State Government did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the

appellant and appointed Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries,

Gujarat and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government, General

Administration Department (hereinafter referred to as "the inquiry

officer") to inquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. After

conducting detailed inquiry in the matter, the inquiry officer submitted

report dated 14.11.1995 with the conclusion that neither of the charges

has been proved against the appellant. The State Government did not

accept the report and passed order dated 1.10.1996 under Rule 10(1) of

the Discipline and Appeal Rules, vide which the matter was remitted to

the inquiry officer. The latter after conducting fresh inquiry, submitted

report dated 31.12.1998 with finding that the charges have not been

proved against the appellant.

2.3 The State Government accepted the findings and conclusion

recorded by the inquiry officer in respect of charge No.1 but partly

disagreed with him in regard to his conclusion qua charge No.1.

Accordingly, notice dated 16.3.2001 was issued to the appellant

proposing to take action against him by treating charge No.1 as partly

proved. The reasons recorded by the State Government for its

disagreement with the findings and conclusion recorded by the inquiry

officer in respect of charge No.1 were also communicated to the

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

appellant. In his reply dated 20.04.2001, the appellant pleaded that in

view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer he should be

exonerated. He also pleaded that the report of the hand writing expert,

which had been obtained at his back, could not be taken into

consideration for holding him guilty.

2.4 A reply was filed by the petitioner on 24.11.1993 denying the

charges. Having not accepted the explanation, the State Government

appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the

petitioner. On 14.11.1995, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report

concluding that both the charges were not proved. The State Government

did not accept the report of the inquiry officer and passed an order on

01.10.1996 under Rule10(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline &

Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Discipline & Appeal

Rules) by which the matter was remitted to the Inquiry Officer. The

Inquiry Officer on conducting a fresh inquiry, submitted a report on

31.12.1998 once again holding that the charges have not been proved.

2.5 The State Government accepted the findings and conclusions

recorded by the inquiry officer but disagreed as far as charge with regard

to charge 1 as being not proved. With regard to Charge No.2, the

disciplinary authority had accepted the Inquiry Officer's exoneration of

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

the petitioner. On 16.03.2001, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to

the petitioner proposing to take action against the petitioner and asking

him to show cause and respond to the disagreement with regard to charge

No.1. The petitioner filed a reply on 20.04.2001. On the reply so filed, by

an order dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner was removed from service.

2.6 The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by filing

Special Civil Application No. 9246 of 2002. By a judgment and order

dated 26.07.2004, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner challenged

the order of the learned Single Judge by filing the Letters Patent Appeal

No. 34 of 2005. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated

22.03.2005, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and after an

extensive discussion allowed the appeal. The order of punishment of

removal from service dated 11.09.2002 was set aside and a direction was

given to the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with

law.

2.7 The State Government issued a show cause notice dated

21.06.2005 asking the petitioner to remain present pursuant to the order

of the Letters Patent Appeal. By an order dated 11.10.2005, the State

Government once again passed an order of removal from service. The

petitioner took the order in review before the State Government and by a

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

communication dated 22.05.2008, the State Government rejected the

review, hence the petition.

3. Heard Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate appearing for Mr.

A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar,

learned AGP for the State. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate submitted that

what is apparent from the chronology of events is that on two occasions

i.e. on 14.11.1995 and 31.12.1998, the inquiry officer on a detailed

analysis of the evidence on record had exonerated the petitioner of the

two charges. He submitted that after the first exoneration by the inquiry

officer's report of 14.11.1995, the State Government by an order dated

01.10.1996 remitted the matter to the inquiry officer with certain

observations inasmuch as with regard to charge no. 1, since the original

diary was not produced by the Presenting Officer and only four of the 12

witnesses had remained present it was necessary to recall the witnesses

and produce the original diary. Even with regard to second charge,

certain observations were made and the inquiry officer was asked to

follow the procedure under Rules 9(13) and 9(14) of the Discipline and

Appeal Rules.

3.1 Mr. Gohil further submitted that what was therefore envisaged on

the remission to the inquiry officer was to hold an inquiry afresh. That

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

the inquiry was held and once again by a report of 31.12.1998, the inquiry

officer exonerated the petitioner holding that the evidence inasmuch as

that of the handwriting expert and that of one Mr. Nagori was not in the

list of documents or charge-sheet as originally framed and therefore there

was violation of Rule 9(4).

3.2 Mr. Gohil would take the court through the defence statement of

the petitioner initially filed on 27.04.1993 and submit that after the order

of the learned Single Judge when the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent

Appeal, from the order of the appeal, he would submit that several

contentions were raised as recorded in the order inasmuch as

(a) the alleged diary was not that of the petitioner ;

(b) during the course of hearing of the case and examination-in-chief of

the witnesses of the government, the Presenting Officer had neither raised

the question of diary or any witnesses ;

(c) the petitioner's handwriting was never taken and;

(d) Rule 9(14) was violated.

3.3 It was therefore submitted by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the

petitioner that it was on certain observations of the Division Bench that

the matter was sent back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh

order. Further if the chronology of events that unfolded preceding the

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

order of the Division Bench and when compared to the fresh order passed

in purported compliance of the order of the Division Bench, the

disciplinary authority has reiterated the order of dismissal dated

11.09.2002 as is evident from the impugned order dated 11.10.2005.

3.4 Mr. Gohil further submitted that the order of removal is beyond the

charge-sheet as the contents of the show-cause notice on which the

charge no. 1 is sought to be disagreed was never framed as a charge. Mr.

Gohil, learned advocate would submit that Rule 9(14) of the Discipline

and Appeal Rules envisaged only inquiry on the same set of evidence and

could not be used to cure inherent lacuna or defects in evidence which

was originally produced from the charge-sheet and the evidence produced

before the inquiry officer originally on 14.11.1995 and 31.12.1998 and

when on both the occasions the investigating officer exonerated the

petitioner it is the fact that the original diary was not produced and

therefore it was a case of no evidence. Apparently, the impugned order

would indicate that the handwriting expert's opinion has been obtained in

comparison with certain writings of the petitioner of which he was never

confronted with. So also Mr. Nagori was never a cited witness in the

charge-sheet. The order being in gross violation of the directions of

Division Bench and Rule 9(14) of the Rules be quashed and set aside.

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

4. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP contended that the orders of

penalty of removal from service was completely justified. He would

submit that the controversy now was restricted to appreciation of charge

no. 1 being proved as the disciplinary authority had agreed with the

charge no. 2 not being proved. Reading charge no. 1 he would submit

that it was in context wherein the personal diary of the petitioner enlisted

incidences when he had met various women on various dates and

admitted to having a relationship or involvement. That was a conduct

unbecoming of a government servant involving moral turpitude and the

only punishment that such an official holding the post of a Deputy

District Development Officer could be inflicted with was that of removal

from service.

4.1 Mr. Thakkar would submit that it had come on record before the

inquiry officer that the lady witnesses though 12 in number listed in the

charge-sheet, only 4 came forward to depose. Some of them

subsequently retracted their statements. The petitioner denied existence

of the diary though a photo copy of the diary was produced. The only

way then left for the authority was to compare the handwriting of the

petitioner with available material with the department to confirm that the

writing was that of the petitioner. Mr. Nagori was also brought in who

before the inquiry officer deposed that it is true that the petitioner was

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

targeting the witnesses. This evidence was in prefect compliance of Rule

9(14) of the Rules inasmuch as it was open for the inquiry officer to

produce evidence not included in the list given to the government

servants. It was also open for the inquiry officer to call for new evidence

or recall and re-examine any witness. It was not a case where an inherent

lacuna or a defect was being cured. Mr. Thakkar, learned AGP would

rely on the affidavit-in-reply filed to the petition.

5. No other submission was made by learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned AGP.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates

for the respective parties, certain undisputed facts need to be recorded:

(i) Of the two charges levelled against the petitioner which are

reproduced hereinabove, the scope of examination vis-a-vis the order of

removal dated 11.10.2005 and the order of review dated 22.05.2008 has

therefore to be restricted only in context of charge no. 1.

(ii) Reading charge no. 1 what is evident is that the petitioner was

alleged to have committed serious misconduct amounting to moral

turpitude and unbecoming of a government servant inasmuch as while

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

working as a Deputy District Development Officer, Amreli, he had

maintained a personal diary wherein his conduct reflected immoral

behaviour with the trainee nurses of the Female Health Workers Training

School, Amreli. The diary names female nurses with whom he had

relationship or otherwise.

(iii) Based on the evidence on record, inasmuch as the charge-sheet

listed 12 witnesses for the purposes of proving the charge, apparently the

order dated 01.10.1996 would indicate that the inquiry officer in his first

report of 14.11.1995 had found that only 4 witnesses had come forward

and all the four witnesses then turned hostile. Hence no witnesses came

forth to support the charge. Further the original diary was not produced

and only photo-copied pages were produced. By an order dated

01.10.1996 the state remitted the matter for inquiry afresh on the count

that no witnesses had come forth and the original diary was not produced.

(iv) Based on this order of the state government the inquiry officer

conducted the inquiry afresh and found that the presenting officer in his

submission has stated that there were 12 witnesses of which in the first

round only 4 had remained present and only 1 Shri J.K. Kharadi had

stood by his deposition framing the petitioner. It was in this background

that one Mr. Nagori was examined who in his deposition of 29.09.1997

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

confirmed that the petitioner had threatened the witnesses and had stated

that the behaviour of the petitioner was immoral. The inquiry officer in

the second report of 31.12.1998 had opined that the handwriting expert's

opinion was not part of the evidence listed in the charge-sheet nor was

Shri Nagori listed as witness. There was therefore violation of Rules

9(13) and 9(14) of the Rules. The investigating officer opined that such

evidence could not be produced to fill up any gap in the evidence. Hence

he exonerated the petitioner.

7. Before I examine the contents of the show-cause notice dated

16.03.2001 issued subsequent to the inquiry officer's report disagreeing

with the report of 31.12.1998, it will be in the fitness of things to examine

these after the observations and the contents of the Division Bench order

are seen. Throughout the proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry, it was

the specific case of the petitioner that the diary was not his. The

government had not produced any support, evidence, panchnama or

rojkam recording the seizure in respect of the diary. It was the case of the

petitioner that even in the departmental proceedings, the Presenting

Officer had neither raised the question with regard to the diary nor any

witnesses had given direct or indirect support to the diary or writings.

The petitioner had further argued that his handwriting was never taken at

any stage and a report of the handwriting expert was obtained ex-parte.

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

There was therefore violation of Rule 9(14) of the Rules. It was his case

that since the inquiry was held as an inquiry afresh, no new evidence can

be added as was done by introducing the handwriting expert and Mr.

Nagori.

7.1 It was in this context that the Division Bench of this Court

remanded the case to the State government to consider and pass a fresh

order. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the contentions of

the petitioner at the relevant point of time which are germane to examine

the legality of the present order. The contentions read as under:

"....(A) Alleged diary is not mine. During the preliminary inquiry or hearing, the Govt. has not produced any support, evidence, panchnama or rojkam regarding the seizure in respect of the same is mine. The preliminary and final inquiry has been conducted only by making presumption which is against the rules of Departmental Inquiry and principle of natural justice.

(B) During the course of hearing of case and examination-in- chief of witnesses for the Govt., the presenting officer has neither raised any question regarding diary nor any witness has given either direct or indirect support to alleged diary or writing thereof in his statement.

(C) My hand writings are never taken at any stage, for Question -2 to obtain the report of the Hand writing expert for the alleged diary. Moreover, this report has been obtained exparte and in unjust way by violating openly the rules of the departmental inquiry, keeping my representations aside and violating the rule 9 (14) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline ad Appeals) Rules,1971 and that is for only this

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

reason that according to conclusions of the Inquiry officer, as the charge is not supported by the witnesses produced by the Govt., lastly the attempt is made to prove that charge treating that said diary and writing are of Shri Basthia.

(D) With a view to obtain the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert, the rule 9(14) is violated as under :

As this departmental inquiry being conducted against me is not "Inquiry" but "Inquiry afresh", no new evidence can be produced at this stage. Because the proceeding to be carried out in preliminary inquiry, have not been carried out at the time of preliminary inquiry too. As the plan for the proof based on witnesses failed, the rule 9(14) is violated in this way and after the closing hearing on 04-10-97 (as per Rojkam dated 29-09-97) by the Inquiry Officer, the exparte and arbitrary submission made in personal capacity by the other side (i.e. Govt.) is accepted as evidence on record without my knowledge and consent.

Rule 9(14) verbatim is as under:

"New evidence shall not be permitted or called for and no witness shall be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence amy be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally."

Thus, at the stage of "Inquiry afresh" of departmental inquiry, the evidence forged and added later on has been produced as a new evidence with a view to adjust the missing link (connecting clue) in filling up the report of handwriting expert. Because this new evidence has been entered at the final stage of inquiry. Moreover, this new evidence can be demanded only for the reason of having essential defect in original evidence produced (of personal diary). In the said case,no such fact has taken place. However, the co-evidence (report of hand writing expert) is produced against rules to the support original evidence produced first by connecting missing link in the evidence. It is also against the principle of natural justice.

(E) The witnesses have been examined during "Inquiry

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

afresh". In this inquiry inspite of my objection Mr.Nagori, whose name is not even entered in the witness list, has been produced as a witness, which is against the rules. In this regard the inquiry officer also has clarified that, as per the principle of natural justice, the reliance can not be placed only on the statement or deposition of Mr.Nagori. Because out of 13 witnesses only Mr.Nagori has supported the charge. Thus, as the charge based on the witnesses is not proved by the depositions of the witnesses, both the facts have been produced by violating the rules arbitrarily. (1) The opinion of hand writing expert against the alleged diary and (2) Mr.Nagori is produced as the witness despite he is not in the witness list.

Thus, as both these facts, which are not mentioned in chargesheet, did not get support and as the charge is not being proved, after knowing this fact by the Presenting Officer & the Govt., later on the procedure has been followed against the rules in exparte, arbitrary and unjust way, being equivalent to breach of principle of natural justice, with a view to prove the said charge by hook or crook."

7.2 The Division Bench in this context held as under:

"... During the course of hearing, we enquired from the learned Assistant Government Pleader whether any material is available on the record to show that the appellant had pressurised the departmental witnesses or influenced them in any other manner. In reply, Shri Kogje fairly stated that no such evidence is available on the record. He also stated that the records of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant do not show that the order removing the appellant was passed because the State Government had lost confidence in him. It is thus clear that the two factors which heavily weighed with the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition were totally extraneous to the pleadings of the parties and the record maintained by the Government.

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

In view of the above conclusion, we may have set aside the order under challenge and remitted the case for fresh adjudication of the writ petition, but after carefully scrutinising the order of punishment we are convinced that the same is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the Scheme of the Rule and the principles of natural justice and, therefore, we do not consider it proper to remand the case to the learned Single Judge.

A perusal of the documents annexed with the writ application shows that in response to show cause notice dated 16.3.2001, the appellant had submitted detailed reply. He not only questioned the legality of the show cause notice and the reasons for disagreement recorded by the State Government but also raised several points in support of his plea that the entries recorded in the personal diary can not be made basis for punishing him. However, without considering any of the points raised in the reply, the State Government passed a cryptic order of punishment. Though the order dated 11.9.2002 runs into 5 typed sheets, a careful reading thereof leads to an irresistible conclusion that it does not satisfy the test of a speaking order. After making reference to 2 charges levelled against the appellant, first inquiry report dated 14.11.95 vide which the inquiry was remitted to the inquiry officer, order dated 1.10.96, second inquiry report, show cause notice dated 16.3.2001 and the reply of the appellant, the State Government recorded a one line conclusion that the explanation given by the appellant is not acceptable and in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Government has decided to remove him from service.

In our opinion, total non consideration of the points taken by the appellant in reply to show cause notice not only reflects lack of objectivity on the part of the State Government but also demonstrates lack of appreciation of the settled legal position that every quasi judicial authority is duty bound to record reasons in support of its conclusions and communicate the same to the affected person."

7.3 The examination of the order impugned in this petition would

indicate that the state government has completely overlooked the

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

intention of the Division Bench qua the sole object of reiterating its stand

on the charges of moral turpitude being proved. While examining this

order what is evident is that from the order of 01.10.1996 of the stage

government the remission was necessary inasmuch as of the 12 witnesses

that were stated in the charge-sheet only 4 had come forward who had

then subsequently retracted their statements. Moreover, the original diary

was never produced nor a panchnama made and that was a specific

observation of the disciplinary authority that the presenting officer had

failed in his duty to secure the original diary.

7.4 To overcome this hurdle of the charge being repeatedly unproved,

as is evident from the contents of the impugned order, the disciplinary

authority compared the hand writing of the petitioner in the photocopies

of the diary with that of some letters that he had written during his tenure

of service as well as the paper of the GPSC and came to the conclusion

that the hand writing of those papers matched with that of the diary and

therefore held the charge to be proved. Added support was taken from the

deposition of Shri Nagori. Extensively reading the Inquiry Officer's

Report dated 31.12.1998 would indicate that the Inquiry Officer had

specifically opined that this method of the department to have the charge

proved was in violation of Rule 9(14) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

Despite this, the State Government blatantly disagreed with this and

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

issued a disagreement notice dated 16.03.2001.

7.5 If the disagreement notice of 16.03.2001 is now examined, the

reason for disagreement in its true translated version reads as under:

"i) According to the findings of the investigating officer, the concerned young women have not confirmed the misconduct as per the text in the personal diary of Mr.Basathiya. So that what is written in the diary does not prove that Mr.Basathiya that Mr.Basathiya behaved, but the text of Mr.Basathiya's personal diary is his text. Taking into account the opinion given by the signature expert, it has been proved that ithe instinct or the activity of writing such dirty text by the responsbile officer Class-I is not considered appropriate. Such behaviour by him is not expected from an officer of his rank. The only thing in his diary is the text in his signature. Thus, the charge no.1 is considered to be proven."

7.6 What is evident on reading the charge and the disagreement notice

is that the same is beyond the charge-sheet and therefore cannot be

considered for imposing penalty. Reading of the order of 11.10.2005

would indicate that the disciplinary authority has in its operative portion

categorically stated that they stand by the order of 11.10.2005 which once

again reflects the decision making process being without application of

mind in context of the order of the Division Bench.

8. Now coming to the question whether there was violation of Rule

9(14), it shall be relevant to peruse Rule 9(14) of Discipline and Appeal

Rules which reads as under:

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

"(14) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiry Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence of recall and reexamine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The Inquiry Authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The Inquiry Authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice.

Note : New evidence shall not be permitted or called for and no witness shall be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally."

8.1 Reading the rule it becomes evident that it is open for the inquiry

authority in its discretion to allow the presenting officer to produce

evidence not included in the list given to the government servant or the

inquiry authority may itself call for the new evidence of recall and

reexamine any witness. Note of the rule would indicate that such

evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacunae or a

defect in the evidence which has been produced originally.

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

8.2 Admittedly, in the inquiry officer's report of 14.11.1995 and

31.12.1998, what has come on record is that on the basis of the evidence

that was produced, the charge could not be proved. In the subsequent

report, the inquiry officer categorically opined that the handwriting

expert's opinion and Shri Nagori's testimony were not part of the original

evidence. It is in this context that may be even if it is qualified as new

evidence, it was not such evidence which was called to cure an inherent

lacuna or defect in evidence which was originally produced. Once on the

basis of the listed witnesses and evidence, the charge could not be

supported, there was no inherent lacuna or defect of the evidence which

was originally produced. Based on the originally produced evidence, the

charge was not proved. Obviously, therefore, the resort to handwriting

expert's opinion and the contention that the writings of the petitioner

behind his back and Mr. Nagori's statement were an exercise to fill up the

gap in the evidence could not have been done. Evidently, therefore the

order of 11.10.2005 should fail on that ground alone. The charge no. 1

could not be held to be proved and the order of removal from service and

the consequential order of review deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 11.10.2005

and 22.05.2008 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be treated

to be in service as if the order of removal dated 11.10.2005 had not been

C/SCA/9566/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2021

passed and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits that may be

available to the petitioner as if these orders were never passed. Rule is

made absolute accordingly.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal