Gujarat High Court
Pravinchandra Gangadhar Raval vs Union Of India on 2 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24773 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAVINCHANDRA GANGADHAR RAVAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order
dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (CAT), in Original Application No.136 of 2006, whereby the
CAT has rejected the Original Application No.136 of 2006 filed by the
petitioner challenging the dismissal order of the petitioner dated
02.09.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. The established facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was
temporarily appointed to the post of Postal Assistant on 09.10.1975, and
thereafter, on 08.03.1979, he was conferred quasi-permanency status. It
appears that the Superintendent of Post Offices visited the petitioner's
office on 18.04.1986 to hold an inquiry regarding his educational
qualification and date of birth. Since there was some doubt regarding his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
date of birth, the competent authority further investigated and found that
the appointment was secured by producing a bogus SSC mark-sheet, SSC
certificate, and School Leaving Certificate. The petitioner was suspended
on 17.06.1986, which was subsequently revoked on 10.03.1988.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on
09.03.1987. The Inquiry Officer, Shri V.M.Ganatra, submitted his inquiry
report on 18.09.2000, proving the charges against the petitioner.
4. In the intervening period, it appears that the CAT stayed the
departmental proceedings since the petitioner was also simultaneously
prosecuted for a criminal offence in Criminal Case No.1093 of 1988.
Ultimately, the petitioner was acquitted for the offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on
20.05.2000 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, by giving
the benefit of doubt.
5. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry continued, and ultimately, the
petitioner was dismissed on 02.09.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was
relieved from service.
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of Postal
Services, Rajkot Region, Rajkot on 17.10.2003, which was also dismissed
on 10.05.2004.
7. The petitioner also filed a review with the Chief Post Master
General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad on 13.10.2004, which was rejected
vide order dated 07.09.2005. Ultimately, all the aforesaid orders were
assailed by the petitioner by filing Original Application No.136 of 2006
before the CAT, and by the impugned judgment and order dated
18.04.2007, the CAT rejected the same, which has given rise to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
present petition.
8. Mr.Chintan K. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the judgment and order passed by the CAT
requires to be quashed and set aside, since the same was not passed after
appreciating the facts in proper perspective. It is submitted that the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is void
ab initio since Shri B.C.Rana, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, was
appointed by the disciplinary committee on 07.01.1986, and the charge-
sheet dated 09.03.1987 was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices,
who is lower in rank.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has invited the attention of this Court
to the photocopy of SSC Certificate of the Gujarat Secondary School
Certificate Examination Board, Baroda, and submitted that the said
certificate categorically refers to the date of birth of the petitioner as
14.01.1953. It is submitted that the aforesaid certificate was disbelieved
only because, although it refers to "SEVEN" subjects, under the Head of
"Total Subjects", it is incorporated as "EIGHT". It is submitted that
during the court proceedings, the advice of the Board was sought, and it
was confirmed that, upon verification of the petitioner's SSC Certificate
of October 1968, the date of birth mentioned therein is 14.01.1953, the
signature of the Head Master, Veraval High School, Veraval, is correct,
and the certificate was awarded to the successful candidates. It is
submitted that this vital aspect has not been appreciated by the CAT.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioner further pointed out that before
inquiry could start, the petitioner had provided a list of 25 documents and
11 witnesses to the Inquiry Officer; however, all the documents were not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
supplied, and only one witness i.e. the Head Master of the School, was
allowed to be examined. Thus, it is submitted that on this count also, the
inquiry proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside.
11. Learned advocate for the petitioner finally contended that the
Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authorities were influenced by
the so-called confession given by the petitioner on 27.06.1986 before one
of the officers - Shri R.H.Raja. It is submitted that, on the very next day,
i.e. on 28.06.1986, the petitioner informed the Director of Post Office that
the statement recorded on 27.06.1986 by Shri R.H.Raja was made under
duress and compulsion and hence, should be ignored. However, it is
submitted that the Inquiry Officer, as well as the disciplinary authority,
considered the statement against the petitioner, wrongfully holding him
guilty of the charge. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed
by the CAT be quashed and set aside.
12. In response to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sushil Shukla,
learned advocate for the respondent authority, urged that the judgment
and order passed by the CAT confirming the order of dismissal may not
be set aside, as the disciplinary authority, as well as the CAT, after a
threadbare examination of all the facts and documents, concluded that the
petitioner had procured the appointment by producing a forged certificate
showing his date of birth as 14.01.1953.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
13. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the CAT, and
the findings of the Inquiry Officer, along with the order of dismissal
passed by the disciplinary authority.
14. The petitioner was issued the Articles of Charge dated 09.03.1987,
alleging that the petitioner prepared the forged documents, i.e. SSC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Certificate, SSC Examination Mark Sheet of the year 1968 and a copy of
School Leaving Certificate (LC), and presented the said certificates in his
application dated 27.08.1975 for the post of Postal Assistant in the Postal
Department, and secured his appointment. It appears that during filling-
up of the first page of the Service Book by the Superintendent of Post
Office, Porbander on 18.04.1986, on an inquiry made, the petitioner
denied having the certificates. On further inquiry, it was found that the
petitioner had failed in the SCC examination in the month of March,
1968, when he appeared on Seat No.52712. In further investigation, the
petitioner made out a case that he had appeared in the SSC examination
in the month of October, 1968 at Junagadh Center, but he had lost both
the mark-sheets. Before the Investigating Officer, he had confessed that
in order to secure the job, he had produced a fake certificate and has
shown his incorrect date of birth as 14.01.1953 instead of 14.01.1951.
However, subsequently, the petitioner has alleged that the confessional
statement was taken under duress and compulsion.
15. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also prosecuted for the criminal
offence under the provisions of sections 468 and 420 of the IPC. The
CAT stayed the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the
criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted on 20.05.2000 by the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, by giving benefit of doubt. Thereafter,
the departmental inquiry continued and ultimately, the petitioner was
dismissed on 02.09.2003. Thus, the petitioner rendered his duties from
10.03.1988 i.e. after revocation of suspension, till he was dismissed on
02.09.2003.
16. The disciplinary authority held the departmental inquiry and found
the charges proved against the petitioner. As mentioned hereinabove, the
documentary evidence was thoroughly examined by the CAT. A copy of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the School Leaving Certificate signed by the Head Master, Veraval High
School, Veraval, was also examined by the CAT, which indicated that the
petitioner's date of birth was 14.01.1953. The CAT, in Paragraph
No.11(b) of the judgment, incorporated and reproduced the same as
under:
"(b) This School Leaving Certificate shows his date of birth as 14.1.1953. It has
also the following remarks:-
"11. Reason for leaving the school: To go elsewhere
12. Attendance (No. of days) in
Matriculation class during school year:
13. Remark: Appeared and failed at the SSC exam
held in March, 1968 Seat No.52712"
It is significant to note that as per this certificate in the applicant has
appeared and failed SSC examination held in March, 1968. Such examinations are
normally held once in a year. Could the applicant have been permitted to participate in
another examination in October, 1968, perhaps under the old stream, is a crucial
question. If he participated as a student of this school then the certificate should have
reflected the position. It has undated signature of Head Master, Veraval High School,
Veraval."
17. Thus, as per the aforesaid School Leaving Certificate issued by
Veraval High School, Veraval, the remark was that the reason for leaving
school was that he had appeared and failed in the examination in March
1968 under Seat No.52712. The CAT has further discussed the mark-
sheet produced by the petitioner as under:
"(i) The certificate and the mark sheet produced by the applicant have entries are
available at Pravin Prakashan Manekchowk, Ahmedabad-I/printed by Morbicha
Printers, Vijay Plot, Main Road, Rajkot-2 respectively.
(ii) The certificate has the following comments on first page :-
"There are six Combination Heads which different languages/subjects are
grouped. A particular Language/subject offered by the candidate under each
Head is indicated by numerical codes as shown under the "Combination
Code" above. Each Combination Code is explained overleaf.
(iii) The Combination Code provides space for six codes. The applicant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
chosen Gujarati, Hindi, Phy. Hyg., Sanskrit, Gujarati and E.Maths respectively.
However, the mark D showing distinction appears against 8 subjects. The mark sheets
shows marks for Higher Level Gujarati, Language Lower Level Hindi, Social Studies,
Gen.Science, EL Maths, English, Science, Ind. Adm. & Civics.
(d) The application shows marks as in mark sheet.
(e) Thus, the comparison with subjects indicated in Combination Code shows as
under:-
Subject in Combination Code but not in Gujarati (option)/Sanskrit
Mark sheet.
Subject not in Combination Code but in Social Study/General
Mark sheet. Science/English/Ind.Admn & Civics.
All these certificates have been certified as true copy. There is no attempt to
explain the differences in the pleadings. (If these are true copies of documents, which
the applicants claim to have handed over, way back in 1986, then how has the
attestation been made while filing them before the Tribunal. No explanation is
forthcoming this."
18. In this regard, a witness - Shri Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu, was
examined by the disciplinary authority, who was the Assistant Secretary
(Examination Wing), Vadodara. His deposition on 23.02.1989, recorded
at 13:30 hrs. by the Inquiry Officer, categorically refers to a letter dated
19.05.1986 at Exh.10, which was issued by the office of the Joint
Secretary and signed by Shri Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu as a Joint Secretary
and was handed over to Shri A.Y.Vohra, who joined his office for
inquiry. He has emphatically deposed that the petitioner, Shri
Pravinchandra Gangadhar Raval, appeared in the SSC Examination of the
Board in October, 1968 under Seat No.A-52715, and as per his office
record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 14.01.1951. Shri Jyotindra V.
Adhvaryu was also shown a mark-sheet of 1968 at Exh.11 of Seat
No.A-11327 issued in favour of the petitioner by the Board with the
stamp and signature of Shri M.R.Champaneria, Joint Secretary. In this
regard Shri Adhvaryu has deposed that, according to the mark-sheet, he
can say that the candidate failed in the relevant examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
19. The petitioner did not choose to cross-examine Shri Adhvaryu. It is
interesting to note that the petitioner, in his list of defense witnesses, had
cited Shri Jyotin Dave as a Joint Secretary of the Gujarat Secondary
Education Board, and an objection was raised by the petitioner before the
CAT and the disciplinary authority that the Inquiry Officer could not
have examined Shri Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu as a witness. The CAT
categorically mentioned that the disciplinary authority has recorded that
when a summons was issued to the said witness viz. Shri Jyotin Dave, no
person by that name was found, and the real person was Shri Jyotindra V.
Adhvaryu, who had signed the letter and thereafter, he was examined as a
witness by the Inquiry Officer. We have also perused the findings of the
disciplinary authority in this regard. The findings of the Inquiry Officer
cannot be set aside only on the ground that it was not permissible for the
Inquiry Officer to examine Shri Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu. In light of the
aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer, more particularly when the
petitioner chose not to cross-examine him, the statement of Shri Jyotindra
V. Adhvaryu, who was a Joint Secretary of the Gujarat Secondary
Education Board, confirming the documentary evidence produced before
him. We, at this stage, cannot set aside the findings of the disciplinary
authority and the impugned order of dismissal on the contention raised by
the petitioner that the disciplinary authority could not have examined Shri
Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu as a witness. The said witness categorically
referred to and asserted that the petitioner had failed in the examination,
and the SSC Certificate produced by him, showed that he passed out with
distinction. The petitioner, in support of his case, relied upon the
certificate issued by the Head Master of the Veraval High School sent by
him vide letter dated 28.04.1986, however, it appears that the Head
Master passed away on 20.02.2002, and before that he did not call him to
appear as a defence witness. Thus, from the documentary and oral
evidence, it is established that the petitioner did not appear in SSC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
examination with Seat No.A-52715 in October, 1968 and the correct one
is Seat No.52712 of March, 1968, wherein he had failed.
20. The CAT, in Paragraph No.45 of the judgment, has recorded the
entire findings as well as the oral evidence of Shri Jyotindra V.
Adhvaryu. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the CAT in its record.
21. Thus, it appears that the petitioner, in order to secure the job,
produced certificates and mark-sheets only to keep himself within the
prescribed age limit by producing a forged mark-sheet and certificate.
22. It is a settled proposition of law that the departmental proceedings
cannot be set aside only because all the documents demanded by the
delinquent are not supplied. The disciplinary authority supplied all the 13
documents which are relied upon. It is not the case of the petitioner that
the documents, on which reliance is placed by the Inquiry Officer, have
not been supplied to him. The petitioner has not shown, if any prejudice
is caused to him for non-supply of the documents, as demanded by him.
Moreover, when sufficient opportunity was extended to the petitioner to
cross-examine a very vital witness - Shri Jyotindra V. Adhvaryu, who
proved that the certificates produced by the petitioner showed him as
unsuccessful in the SSC Examination and his date of birth as 14.01.1951,
the petitioner did not cross-examine him, and his evidence remained
uncontroverted and unchallenged. The contention raised by the petitioner
that the charge-sheet itself was void ab initio, as it was issued by the
Superintendent of Post Offices, who is lower in rank, also does not merit
acceptance, as no provision of law or regulation has been shown to us that
can impose that if the charge-sheet is issued by a person who is lower in
rank, then the same will vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs.
Rukma Kash Mishra, AIR 2025 SC 656, has held that the disciplinary
proceedings cannot be faulted with on the ground that the charge sheet is
not issued either by the appointing authority or disciplinary authority
unless the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules provide. Furthermore,
the petitioner is unable to point out any prejudice caused to him.
23. The aspect of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has also
been dealt with by the disciplinary authority and also by the CAT. The
petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal offence by the trial Court
by giving benefit of doubt. We have also threadbare examined the
judgment dated 20.05.2000 recording the acquittal. Curiously, the trial
Court has granted liberty to initiate departmental inquiry against the
petitioner. The trial Court has very perfunctorily dealt with the evidence,
while acquitting the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections
420 and 468 of the IPC. It is true that the substratum of the disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal offence is based on the forged mark-sheets,
however, it is noticed by us that the findings recorded by the trial Court
do not impinge the findings of the disciplinary proceedings. It is trite that
the standard of proof in the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal
proceedings are entirely different. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere
with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the mere acquittal of the
petitioner from the criminal offence.
24. The CAT has summarized the findings as under:
"47. Our findings in respect of different contentions can be summarised as under:-
(i) The charge sheet could have been issued regarding documents produced at
the time of appointment.
(ii) Notwithstanding the appointment of adhoc disciplinary authority the Supdt.
of Post Offices was competent to issue the charge sheet.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(iii) There was no illegality in examining J.V.Adhvaryu as a prosecution
witness.
(iv)The matter relating to ex parte enquiry was never raised before the
Authorities. What was raised was examination of J.V.Adhvaryu as a witness and
not permitting a fuller cross examination of Mr.Vyas and Mr.Raja.
Similarly, the matter relating to not sending the two receipts for examination
of handwriting experts was not raised before the Authorities.
Hence these questions cannot be considered by us.
(v) In case of deficiencies during the enquiry process the onus is on the applicant
to prove as to what prejudice was caused to him."
25. It is adroitly settled legal precedent that the power of judicial
review under Article 227 of the Constitution by the High Court has to be
very sparingly exercised in exceptional cases when there is manifest
miscarriage of justice, and such power, however, is not to be exercised to
correct a mistake of fact and of law. We are in complete agreement with
the findings recorded by the CAT. We do not find it either that the
findings recorded by the disciplinary authority is premised on no
evidence. There is neither any violation of principles of natural justice,
nor we find that the statutory rules, under which the disciplinary
proceedings are held, are breached.
26. Mr. Chintan K. Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, at this
stage submits that since the petitioner has worked for more than 20 years,
his punishment of dismissal may be converted to voluntary retirement. In
view of the proved misconduct, which is very serious in nature, we do not
intend to alter the punishment of dismissal passed by the disciplinary
authority.
27. On the overall analysis of the disciplinary proceedings and the
judgment of the CAT, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24773/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
dismissal. Hence, the present writ petition fails, and the same is
dismissed.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/3
