C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Reserved On : 04/05/2026

Pronounced On : 17/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16392 of 2013

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

DINESHKUMAR JETHALAL PARMAR

Versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MIREN PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

MR KM PARIKH(575) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. This petition is presented by Mr. D. J. Parmar,

who had joined the railways in the year 1972, was

promoted in 1981 as Welfare Inspector and thereafter

as Assistant Personnel Officer in 1995.

2. In the year 1999, a charge-sheet was laid against

him and an enquiry was conducted in which it was

found that the charges had been established and the

Page 1 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Disciplinary Authority proceeded to accept the enquiry

report and impose a penalty of removal from service.

3. An appeal preferred by him before the Appellate

Authority was also dismissed. He thereafter approached

the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “CAT”)

challenging the penalty imposed on him but even the

CAT dismissed the application and consequently he has

filed the present petition.

4. The necessary facts for deciding this writ petition

as could be ascertained from the original records

produced by the Railways as per the orders of this

Court and the pleadings are as follows:

5. On 12.02.1999 a charge-sheet was laid against

Parmar in which the following two charges were made.

“Shri DJ Parmar, APO(IR)-CCG/while working as

APO(C)-CCG during the month of June, 1996

committed gross misconduct in as much as that:

1. He concealed the fact regarding his daughter’s

candidature in the examination for NTPC conduct

Page 2 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

by RRB/Mumbai held on 12.6.1996 in Centre No.

22, New English High School, MG Marg, Vasai from

the administration and got himself nominated as

centre in charge therein.

2. He extended undue favour to his daughter in the

written examination by misusing his official

position with the assistance of his subordinate

staff.

By his above acts Shri DJ Parmar has displayed

lack of integrity and acted in a manner which is

unbecoming of a Railway Servant Infringing Rules-

3.1(i) & (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,

1996.”

6. As could be seen from the above, the charge-

sheet that had been laid in 1999 was regarding an

allegation that he had abused his official position to

help his daughter, who had taken up an examination

conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board in the

year 1996.

7. On 24.02.1999, i.e., about three weeks after

charge-sheet had been laid against Mr. D. J. Parmar, a

charge-sheet was also laid against one Mr. S. A. Gajre.

Page 3 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

8. The charge-sheet that has been laid against Gajre

is not available in the records. It is however admitted by

the Railways that the charge leveled against S. A. Gajre

was that he had intentionally given a misleading

statement to the Chief Vigilance Inspector on

19.08.1998 to the effect that D. J. Parmar was not

available in the school's office at New India English

School, Vasai on 23.08.1996 between 10:00 hours to

12:30 hours and he had stated that D. J. Parmar had

fallen sick and hence had left the school.

9. On 28.06.2000, S. A. Gajre passed away and as a

consequence on 02.08.2000 the disciplinary

proceedings against him were closed in view of his

demise.

10.It may be pertinent to state here that the basic

charge against D. J. Parmar, as could be seen from the

charge extracted above, was that he had got himself

nominated at the New English High School, Vasai, by

suppressing the fact that his daughter was taking this

Page 4 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

examination, and had shown undue favor to his

daughter in the written examination, by misusing his

official position.

11.However, strangely, at about the same time, an

inquiry was conducted against S. A. Gajre, who was

posted at the same school in connection with the RRB

exam, to the effect that he had connived with D. J.

Parmar, and in order to help him, had given a

misleading statement that Parmar was not available in

the school between 10:00 hours to 12:30 hours i.e.,

during the time his daughter took up the examination.

12.Though the charge, both against Gajre and

Parmar related to the same incident which was alleged

to have occurred on 23.08.1996 whereby D. J. Parmar

was alleged to have helped his daughter in the

examination which she took up, the railways, for

reasons best known to them, did not conduct a joint

inquiry.

Page 5 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

13.It may also be pertinent to state here that the

railways did not inform D. J. Parmar or the inquiry

officer of the fact that there was a statement made by S.

A. Gajre to the effect that D. J. Parmar was not

available in the New India English School on

23.08.1996 from 10:00 to 12:30 hours.

14.It is obvious that this charge, made by the

railways against S. A. Gajre, would basically mean that

there was a statement that Parmar was not available in

the school when the examination of his daughter had

taken place, and this would in turn, render the charge

laid against him nugatory.

15.An inquiry was conducted on the basis of the

charge that had been laid against Parmar.

16.The railways sought to make out a case against

Parmar to the effect that in the Railway Recruitment

Board examination, which was scheduled to be held on

23.06.1996, his daughter was allotted New English

Page 6 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

School, Vasai as her center to take up the examination,

and though he was aware that his daughter was allotted

the center, he had made a request to be appointed as

center-in-charge at the very same school by requesting

one Mr. P. K. Goel and he was nominated as the center-

in-charge for the said school.

17.The Railways sought to contend that he had

deliberately hidden the fact that his daughter was

taking up the exam at that center and he also did not

deliberately sign in the declaration regarding the close

relatives appearing at the center.

18.It was sought to be alleged that he had asked his

subordinate Shri Worlikar to solve the question paper

and write the answers on a sheet of papers and he had

asked him to accompany him to room No. 22 where his

daughter was seated and he took out the answer-cum-

question paper from Shri Baria who was the invigilator

of the said room and had asked Worlikar to solve the

questions relating to his daughter. It was alleged that

Page 7 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Parmar had subsequently told him that the answer

book belonged to his daughter.

19. In short, the allegation against D. J. Parmar was

that he had manipulated his nomination as an officer-

in-charge and using this official position, he had called

upon his subordinate to solve the question papers and

thereafter had approached the invigilator and had taken

out the answer book of his daughter and got them

corrected by Worlikar with an intention to unduly favor

his daughter.

20.Interestingly, even though there was clear

allegations of misconduct against Mr. Gajre, the

invigilator Baria and Raju Worlikar, who was alleged to

have corrected the answers, the Railways chose to

proceed only against Mr. D. J. Parmar, the present

petitioner, Mr. S. A. Gajre, Officer-in-charge of Center

(against whom the inquiry was closed on account of his

death) and Mr. Baria, the invigilator.

Page 8 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

21.Though there was a clear allegation that it was

Raju Worlikar, who corrected the answer at the behest

of the petitioner Mr. D. J. Parmar, no charge was laid

against him nor was any inquiry held against him. An

inquiry was conducted on this charge and five witnesses

namely, P.K. Goel (with whom the petitioner Mr. Parmar

was supposedly made a request for being nominated to

the school), Raju Worlikar, (the Clerk who had corrected

the answers of Parmar's daughter), Mr. P. Kulkarni,

Head Clerk, and Shri Bankar, were examined as

witnesses.

22.During the course of the inquiry, Mr. P. K. Goel

deposed that the petitioner had requested him to

nominate him at New English School and Raju Worlikar

also deposed that he had been requested by Parmar to

correct his daughter's answer papers. On the basis of

this evidence, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion

that the charges had been established, and the

Disciplinary Authority accepted this inquiry report and

Page 9 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

proceeded to impose the punishment of removal from

service on 08.04.2005. An appeal filed by the petitioner

Parmar to the President was also rejected on

08.09.2006.

23.The petitioner approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal which has dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner Mr. D. J. Parmar on

the ground that a fair procedure was followed by the

Railways in conducting the inquiry and the Tribunal

could not enter into the adequacy of the evidence or

reliability of the evidence.

24.The Tribunal held that its interference in such

matters was limited. It also recorded a finding that the

examination of Raju Worlikar as a tactical collaborator

did result in his evidence being viewed cautiously. The

totality of the circumstances, even though the answer

sheet of the petitioner Parmar's daughter had not been

sent for any expert, did not provide for any mitigating

circumstances in favor of the petitioner Parmar.

Page 10 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

25.The Tribunal also held that the success or failure

of the petitioner Parmar's daughter in the conducted

examination was not germane, and it proceeded to

dismiss the application.

26.Though in matters relating to a department

enquiry, the scope of interference is limited, it is well-

established law that when there is complete perversity

on the part of the employer in laying the charge against

an employee, and when there is absolutely no evidence

to establish the charge, Courts of Law are duly bound to

intervene to avoid a travesty of justice. In our view, this

is one such case where we are forced to intervene in the

orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as

by the CAT, given the facts which have unraveled

during the course of hearing this matter.

27.During the course of the hearing, Parmar, who

appeared in person, highlighted three major factors.

Firstly, Gajre who was the officer-in-charge had clearly

stated that he was not available in the school between

Page 11 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

10:30 and 12:30 hours, for which he had in fact been

charged with having made a misleading statement. He

submitted that if the Railways were unable to establish

this fact, even if it was because of the death of Gajre,

the fact remained that the officer in charge of the school

had made a categorical statement that the petitioner

was not in the school when his daughter took up the

examination. He submitted that this key fact about the

officer-in-charge having made a statement that he was

not in the school at the time when his daughter took up

the examination had been deliberately suppressed by

the Railways during the course of the entire enquiry

held against him. He submitted that if this statement of

Gajre had been placed on record, that by itself would

completely demolish the charge that had been laid

against him that he was in the school when his

daughter took up the exam and had proceeded to help

her in the said examination.

28.Secondly, he submitted that the fact that the

Page 12 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Railways did not conduct a joint enquiry in respect of

all the people including Gajre, who was alleged to have

committed a misconduct, by itself proves that there was

a witch hunt in progress.

29.Thirdly, he submitted that the fact that a charge

sheet was filed three years after the incident also

establishes that the entire enquiry initiated was a mala

fide exercise.

30.On the merits of the charge, Parmar contended

that apart from the Gajre’s statement, the evidence of

Raju Worlikar was itself so contradictory that the

inquiry officer have could never come to the conclusion

that the charge of tempering with his daughter’s answer

paper had been established.

31.He highlighted the fact that Worlikar clearly

admitted during the course of his cross-examination

that he had been asked to distribute the question paper

to the respective rooms wherever it was found that there

Page 13 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

was a shortfall and that he also did some other

miscellaneous work like distributing pins, collecting

attendance sheets etc. and after completion of this work

he was sitting with the Petitioner Parmar and in

between, as and when required, he was attend the work

given to him.

32.He pointed out the Worlikar had stated that in

the last half an hour of the examination, Parmar had

given him one set of question-cum-answer papers and

asked him to solve it, which he did on a rough paper

and had thereafter given it to Parmar. He had also

stated that Parmar had taken the blank answer-cum-

question paper and kept it in a bundle of unused

question papers and after the written test was over, he

had asked him to accompany him and took him to room

No. 22 in which Dheeraj Baria and D. D. Parmar were

already there and he then asked Baria to give him the

answer papers and Baria handed over the answer paper

to him and Parmar sat down with Raju Worlikar and

Page 14 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

asked him to tick mark in the answer sheet and Baria

took out the answer sheet and gave it to D. J. Parmar.

33.He also submitted that D.J. Parmar and D. D.

Parmar sat down with him (Raju Worlikar) and told him

to tick mark in the answer sheets while he was reading

answer from the rough paper in which he had written

the answers earlier and after ticking the answers he had

given the answer sheet to Baria who was in-charge of

the room.

34.He submitted that in the light of this evidence it

was clear that according to Raju Worlikar he had solved

the question paper and had thereafter accompanied the

Petitioner Mr. D. J. Parmar and had requested the

Invigilator Baria to hand over the answer sheet to him

and he had then asked him to tick mark in the answer

sheet.

35.It was therefore contended that according to the

Railways, Raju Worlikar had tick marked in the answer

Page 15 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

sheet, but the alleged tampered answer sheet produced

of his daughter clearly indicated that there was not a

single tick mark in the answer sheet and the answer

sheets only contained numbers. He, therefore,

contended that when there was absolutely no tick mark,

as stated by Raju Worlikar who had allegedly tampered

with the answer sheets, the entire charge against him

would miserably fail.

36.He also highlighted the fact that since the

Railways alleged that he had taken Raju Worlikar to the

room and had called upon the Invigilator therein i.e.,

Mr. Baria to hand over the answer papers for making

the corrections to the answer sheets of his daughter,

and when such an important witness like the said

Invigilator Baria who was instructed to hand over the

answer was not even examined, the charge of tampering

with the answer sheet which was admittedly in the

custody of Baria could never have been held to have

been established. He also submitted that the fact that

Page 16 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

the other witness to this misconduct, i.e., Mr. Parmar,

was also not examined to establish this case also

indicated that the charge had not at all been proved.

37.He sought to contend that given the nature of

charges alleged against him, Mr. Gajre, Mr. Baria and

Mr. D. D. Parmar, it was necessary that a joint inquiry

be conducted and each charge, which were

interconnected, had to be established. However, since a

separate inquiry was conducted and there was no

evidence adduced to establish that he had committed a

misconduct in connivance with the others, the entire

inquiry report would be illegal. He submitted that the

charge did not contain any allegation of his connivance

with or seeking help of the invigilator was made, and

hence the entire proceedings were vitiated.

38.Lastly, he contended that since there was no

charge or inquiry initiated against Raju Worlikar,

against whom the primary charge of tampering with the

answer sheets were conducted with the Railways, the

Page 17 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

entire charge against him would have to necessarily fail.

39.He pointed out that in service matters, the

question of treating an employee, against whom a

specific act of wrongdoing has been alleged, to be a

witness against other employee is wholly impermissible.

He submitted that if the allegation of the Railways were

indeed true, then all the employees involved ought to

have been charged, and if one employee is absolved of

any wrongdoing and is treated as an approver in order

to secure a finding of guilt against the other employees,

the entire proceedings would stand vitiated.

40.The petitioner Parmar also submitted that as a

matter of fact his daughter had not even passed the

examination, and therefore the question of him helping

his daughter was absurd. He submitted that had he

really helped his daughter through the services of

Worlikar, the question of his daughter failing would

never arise, and this one fact was by itself sufficient to

discard the charges leveled against him.

Page 18 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

41.Learned counsel appearing for the Railways on

the other hand sought to basically contend that the

interference in departmental proceedings, either by the

CAT or by this Court, would be extremely limited. He

submitted that since there was clear evidence adduced

regarding the misconduct of the petitioner and since

Raju Worlikar’s evidence clearly established Parma’s

wrongdoing, the Disciplinary Authority had no other

option but to record a finding of guilt.

42.He submitted that a finding of guilt recorded by

the Inquiry Officer on positive evidence adduced by the

Railways was, by itself, sufficient to impose the extreme

punishment of removal. He submitted that the extreme

punishment of removal was warranted since the

petitioner had got himself nominated as the officer in

charge in a school where his daughter was taking the

exam, and had abused his position to help his

daughter.

43.Mr. Shukla also sought to argue that this Court

Page 19 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

ought not to examine the merits of the allegation

against the petitioner. He highlighted that this Court

should not make an attempt to ascertain the guilt of the

petitioner since that had already been established by

the Inquiry Officer. In short, he submitted that this

Court ought not to consider the case put forth by

Parmar on merits.

44.In the light of the above, the main question that

arises for consideration in this petition is:

I) Whether a finding of guilt could have been recorded

against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence

adduced against him?

II) Whether the charge against the petitioner could be

even maintained in the light of the statement of Mr. S.A.

Gajre that he was not in the school between 10:00 and

12:30 hours when his daughter took up the

examination?

Page 20 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

III) Whether the Railways could have proceeded only

against the petitioner, Mr. Gajre, and Mr. Baria and not

take any steps against Raju Worlikar who was the

person who was accused of tampering with the answer

sheets?

45.At the outset, it is true that in matters arising out

of departmental proceedings, the interference of the

Courts would be limited. However, it is also settled law

that when there is a case in which there is patent

perversity and there is absolutely no evidence to

support a charge, the Courts are bound to intervene. In

a case where there is evidence that an employee is being

targeted, the Court is even more duty bound to

intervene.

46.In our view, the proceedings initiated against the

petitioner is a clear case of mala fide exercise of power.

We say so because we have examined the entire original

record relating to the petitioner and also to the other

employees which are found in the original record and

Page 21 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

which came to light only because the petitioner stated

that the enquiry against the other employees came to be

known to him after the succeeded in getting some of

records under the RTI Act.

47.In fact, when the petitioner placed on record a

copy of the charge sheet that had been laid against

Parmar, we were constrained to call upon the Railways

to inform us whether there was indeed an enquiry

against Parmar and only then were we informed that

there had been an initiation of proceedings against SA

Gajre. The Railways, thereafter, on our direction filed an

affidavit admitting the above fact and at our further

direction placed on record the entire file, which

unravelled all the facts.

48.As narrated above, the gist of the charge was that

the petitioner Parmar had manipulated the situation to

ensure that he was nominated as the officer-in-charge

and this was because he wanted to help his daughter

who was taking up the examination at that very center.

Page 22 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

The basic charge was that he used this position and

called upon his subordinate head clerk Raju Worlikar to

solve the question paper and thereafter approached the

invigilator, secured the answer paper of his daughter

and thereafter asked Raju Worlikar to make a tick mark

in the answer sheets.

49.In other words, Raju Worlikar is supposed to

have made tick marks in the answer sheet of the

petitioner Parmar's daughter's answer sheet and had

thereby ensured that she had answered all the

questions correctly and this had enabled his daughter

to secure an undue advantage in the examination.

50.Firstly, in a case in which charges are leveled

against a group of employees of collectively acting

together to help one of the employee's daughter, the

Railways were required to hold an enquiry against all

the employees who were guilty of this wrongdoing. The

moment the enquiry was split and was sought to be

conducted independently of each other, that by itself,

Page 23 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

established that the Railways were trying to target the

employees selectively.

51.We are constrained to say so because there was a

clear statement of S.A. Gajre, the officer-in-charge, that

the petitioner Parmar was not in the school between

10:00 to 12:30 hours i.e., when his daughter took up

the examination. If this statement was true, then, the

entire charge that the petitioner Parmar was in the

school and had used his authority to help his daughter

would simply fall to the ground.

52.It is admitted that the charge against Gajre was

that he had made a misleading statement that Parmar

was not in the school. However, this charge was not

established inasmuch as the enquiry against him was

closed because he passed away. In law, if a charge that

an employee had made a misleading statement has not

been established, the inference is that the statement

that he made was, indeed, correct. However, here the

enquiry ended prematurely, as the delinquent- Gajre,

Page 24 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

passed away unexpectedly. Thus, the statement that

Gajre had made, namely that the petitioner Parmar was

not in the school, may have to be accepted.

53.The original record which was placed before us on

our direction contains a preliminary report in which

Gajre's statement dated 11.08.1996 is produced. The

question No. 10 to 17 put to S.A. Gajre and his reply are

as follows:

Q.10 From what time to what time Shri D.J. Parmar,

APO(C) was available at New English School (Vasai)(W)

on 23.6.96?

Ans. He was not available with in office from 10 Hrs.

to 12.30 Hrs. and available from 12.30 Hrs in office.

upto 21.30 Hrs. He arrived at New English school,

Vasai at 10.00 Hrs.

Q.11 Who was actual officer-in-charge nominated by

RRB for conducting the written test on 23.6.96 at New

English School, Vasai Ref.(W)

Ans. As per RRB's orders Shri D.J. Parmar, APO(C)

was nominated officer-in-charge.

Q.12. If Shri D.J. Parmar, APO(C)CCG was the

nominated officer of the New English school, Vasai(W)

for conducting written test on 23.6.96, then why did

you work as officer-in-charge in the morning session.

Page 25 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Ans. As per APO(C)'s orders I managed the work in the

morning session.

Q.13. What do you mean by manage the work in the

morning session.

Ans. I managed the work with the help of Shri

Kulkarni, Raju K. Worlikar, Kadu, charge etc.

Q. 14 When did Shri D.J. Parmar, APO(C) was officer-

in-charge nominated by RRB, to work as such on

23.6.96 then why did he not work as such in the

morning session, i.e. why he asked to work.

Anr. Shri Parmar, APO(C) at last moment at 10.00 Hrs.

had ordered me to work in his absence as he was not

feeling well and not in a position to manage the work

in morning session.

Q.15. As stated by you in your answer to question

no.10 that Shri Parmar was not with you from 10 to

12.30 Hrs. and in answer to question no.14 that you

stated that at 10. Hrs. 23.6.96 he told you that to work

in his place as he was not feeling well in this

connection please state how do you remember the

exact time and also state what happen to him that he

was not feeling well (what sickness) etc.

Ans. He has not explained about his sickness at last

moment i.e. at that time when he had asked to

work. Time explained by me may be slightly changed.

Q.16. Who worked as officer-in-charge in the afternoon

session on 23.6.96 at New English school, Vasai (W)

during the written test held there.

Page 26 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Ans. Mr. D.J. Parmar, APO(C) had worked as officer-in-

charge in the afternoon session during written test

held there.

Q.17. Do you mean to say that he was well in the

afternoon session to work as officer-in-charge on

23.6.96.

Ans. At about 12.30 Hrs. Mr. Parmar, APO(C) came

and stated that I will manage the work of afternoon

session.

54.This statement of Shri Gajre would clearly

indicate that he had positively stated that the petitioner

Parmar was not available at the New English School,

Vasai on 23.06.1996 between 10:00 hrs to 12:30 hrs. If

the Officer-in-Charge had made a categorical statement

to this effect, obviously the charge that the petitioner

Parmar was in the school and had proceeded to help his

daughter would fall to the ground.

55.The fact that the Railways were of the view that

this statement of Gajre was misleading and incorrect,

and this required an inquiry to be conducted against

him, would indicate that it is a case that the Railways

Page 27 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

are of the clear view that he was also involved with the

petitioner-Parmar and was thereby a party to the

misconduct. If that was the resultant view of the

Railways, it is beyond anyone's comprehension as to

why separate inquiries were conducted against the

petitioner Parmar and Gajre.

56.Similarly, the further allegation was that Parmar

had taken Raju Worlikar to the room in which his

daughter had taken up the examination and had called

upon the Invigilator to provide his daughter's answer

sheet, whereupon he had called upon Raju Worlikar to

tick the answer marks in that answer sheet. This would

also indicate that the Invigilator, Mr. Baria, was also

involved and, more importantly, Raju Worlikar was the

person who had tampered with the answer sheets.

57.If the allegation was that there was such a

coordinated event amongst three officials for tampering

of the marks of the petitioner's daughter, the fact that

the Railways did not conduct a joint enquiry and, most

Page 28 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

importantly, did not choose to hold Raju Worlikar, who

tampered with the answer books, accountable for his

wrongdoing is rather strange and perplexing.

58.This approach of the Railways in letting Raju

Worlikar off the hook was obviously only to ensure that

his evidence is utilized to secure a finding of guilt

against the petitioner, Mr. Gajre, and Mr. Baria, the

Invigilator of that room.

59.In departmental proceedings, though the

principle of preponderance of probabilities is applied to

record a finding of guilt against a delinquent employee,

the departmental proceedings will not enable an

Employer to selectively choose the employees against

whom it will proceed, more so when the misconduct

alleged is a coordinated attempt of several employees to

achieve a common purpose. The Employer, while

conducting the disciplinary proceedings, is required to

enquire into the misconduct of his employees and he

cannot decide on selectively proceeding against only a

Page 29 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

few of the employees and letting go of the remaining,

even though it was their admitted case that they were

an active party to the misconduct. If this is the legal

position, the act of the Railways in letting go of Raju

Worlikar off the hook vitiates the entire enquiry that has

been initiated against the other employees including the

petitioner Mr. Parmar.

60.In our view, what is really shocking is that the

Railways did not even inform the petitioner that parallel

inquiries were being conducted in respect of the very

same incident making different sets of allegations

against the other employees. As indicated above, the

charge that was laid against Gajre would basically

exonerate the petitioner herein because according to

Gajre's statement, the petitioner was not even present

in the school at the time his daughter took up the

examination.

61.The Railways, by proceeding only against the

petitioner, Gajre, and Baria, have basically exonerated

Page 30 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Worlikar of all wrongdoing, though, even according to

the case of the Railways, it was Worlikar who had

tampered with the answer sheets. If Worlikar was the

person who had acceded to the request of the petitioner

and tampered with the answer sheet, letting him off the

hook and proceeding only against the petitioner and

three others would be absolutely impermissible.

62.It is to be stated here that Gajre had categorically

stated that the petitioner was not available in the

school. The original record does not contain the entire

records but it does contain record which indicates that

the other persons, i.e., Baria and Parmar, who are also

alleged to have been involved in this incident, were

proceeded against and penalties of reduction by one

stage for a period of two months and reduction of initial

grade respectively, have been imposed on them.

However, whether these punishments have been

challenged by them or not, is not forthcoming from the

records.

Page 31 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

63.It is seen from the original records, that Baria

was charged with abetting the petitioner in committing

an unethical act by way of giving out/taking out answer

sheets of the petitioner’s daughter to the petitioner and

also that he had given a false and misleading statement

to the Chief Vigilance Inspector. The exact reasoning for

concluding the guilt of Baria reads as under:

“No where the charge is pressed or discussed with

regard to help or abetment in any other form by the

C.O. in fact it is others who have been charged for

attempting/writing answer for the candidates who

was the daughter of the APO Shri D. J. Parmar, Shri

Baria’s abetment is that he gave/handed over the

answer book to the centre in charge. In fact even if Shri

Baria, Junior Clerk, would not have been difficult for

them to take out the answer sheet of the girl in

question. The point is not whether Shri Baria gave the

“whole bunch” to the exam centre in charge or a “single

copy but what was the role of Shri Baria and what

would have been chain of events if he was not there

and the gravity of act of omission or commission on his

part. Thus, when exam centre in charge demands a

copy or the whole bunch a junior clerk has no choice

but to hand over the same to him because in any case

centre incharge is the one supposed to be the

custodian of all the answer sheets and it is his

responsibility to safly deposit the same to its destined

place.”

64.As could be seen from the above, it is not

Page 32 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

recorded that Baria was asked to give only the answer

sheet of the petitioner’s daughter or whether the whole

bunch of answer sheets was handed over to the

petitioner. But, in the statement of imputations against

the petitioner it is stated as follows:

“Shri D. J. Parmar, APO took out an answer-cum-

question paper from the bunch of answer books

collected at the end of the examination by Shri Baria

who was the invigilator of the rook and asked Shri

Worlimar to solve the remaining questions duly ticking

the right answers.”

65.As could be seen from the above, the statement if

to the effect that the petitioner took out the answer

sheets from the bunch of answer sheets collected by

Baria. This indicates that the petitioner took the paper

books whereas the finding as extracted above was that

Baria either handed over a single answer book or the

entire bunch of answer books.

66.Unless Baria had made a statement that he was

asked to hand over the answer sheets by the petitioner

and the petitioner was allowed to challenge this

Page 33 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

statement by way of cross examination, the charge

against the petitioner would become doubtful.

67.The fact that Baria was alleged to have given an

false and misleading answer to the CVI also indicates

that he did not support the case of the Railways that

the petitioner was involved in the incident of tampering

with the answer sheets. This makes the charge even

more doubtful.

68.In so far as DD Parmar (also known as DD

Bankar) as per the original records, it appears that he

was also charged with abetting the petitioner for

committing an unethical act and he had also given a

false and misleading statement to cover up the act the

unethical act to the CVI.

69.In the original record, the reasoning for order

against DD Parmar @ DD Bankar reads as follows:

“During the course of enquiry as clear from answer to

q. no. 8 that charged official knew sh. D J Parmar as

both hailed from same place even before the

Page 34 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

examination was being conducted. In addition to it, in

answer to q. no. 17(PD-6) the C.O. has confirmed that

he knew that sh. D J Parmar’s daughter was

appearing in the NTPC written test on 23/6/96 in

morning session in the same school, i.e., New English

School, which he has certified in his answer to next

question No. 18 wherein he has confirmed that sh. D J

Parmar introduced him to his daughter. Further he has

also confirmed he knew that sh. D J Parmar’s

daughter was appearing in room no. 22 for the written

test. Further, during the enquiry, the C.O. (charged

Official) has confirmed in his answer to Q. No. 20 that

he went to room no. 22 along with sh. D J Parmar, the

then APO/COG and other were present, after

examination was over. At that time the answer sheet of

one of the candidates, later identified as daughter of

sh. D J Parmar was being corrected as accepted by the

employee during his investigation in answer to q. no.

21(PD-6). As sh. D D Banker was present in the room

when this unethical action was being done, as a

railway servant, it was his duty to report this matter

immediately to the concerned officials, he has failed to

do so and hence is a party to the unethical act of sh. D

J Parmar and hence the charge levelled against him

are found to be correct as also pointed out by EO in his

findings.”

70.As could be seen from the above, it is found that

DD Bankar accompanied the petitioner to Room No 22

and at that time one answer sheet (later identified as

the one belonging to the petitioner’s daughter) was

being corrected. This finding would contradict the

allegation that had been made against the petitioner

Page 35 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

that he had collected or demanded the answer sheets of

his daughter and had asked Raju Worlikar to correct

them.

71.Unless there was a clear statement from DD

Bankar that the petitioner had demanded and collected

the answer sheet of his daughter from Baria and had

asked Worlikar to correct them and this statement was

confronted and allowed to be challenged by way of cross

examination, the charge against the petitioner would

become weak. The further fact that Bankar was alleged

to have made a false and misleading statement to the

CVI to cover up the act of the petitioner would make the

charge against the petitioner even more weak.

72.It appears that the Railways embarked upon this

misadventure of holding different inquiries against the

aforementioned four employees only because the

charges alleged against them and their statements

would contradict the entire manner in which the

incident was alleged to have been staged. It would also

Page 36 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

appear that the Railways were only interested in

targeting the petitioner as his daughter was alleged to

be the beneficiary of the wrongdoing, though, it has also

come on records that his daughter had actually failed in

the examination and she gained no benefit from this

alleged malpractice.

73.In our view, when the allegation was that the

invigilator had handed the answer sheets to the

petitioner and he had got Worlikar to correct them is let

off with a minor penalty, the manner in which Railways

have proceeded in the entire matter, is to be deprecated.

The fact that the Railways had decided not to conduct a

joint enquiry against all the persons involved in the

same incident, smacks of arbitrariness. A feeble

argument was sought to be advanced that disciplinary

authorities in respect of Gajre were different and

against the petitioner was different, and therefore

separate inquiries were conducted. This argument is

completely unacceptable.

Page 37 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

74.The highest Disciplinary Authority would

obviously be the authority to proceed against employees

who are involved in one incident. It must not be lost

sight of that the ultimate aim of any Employer is to

weed out the employees who are indulged in

malpractice, and it should not be the intention of the

Employer to shield one set of employees while

proceeding against the other. It should not also be the

intention of the Employer that proceedings are initiated

independent of each other against employees in respect

of a single incident. This would lead to severe prejudice

being caused to all the employees and would also

prevent the employer to get to the truth of the matter.

75.Rule 13 of The Railway Servant (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, 1968 reads as under:

13. Common proceedings -

(1) Where two or more Railway servants are concerned

in any case, the President or any other authority

competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from

service on all such Railway servants, may make an

order directing that disciplinary action against all of

them may be taken in a common proceedings.

Page 38 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Note:- If the authorities competent to impose the

penalty of dismissal on such Railway servants are

different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a

common proceeding may be made by the highest of

such authorities with the consent of the others.

(2) Any such order shall specify -

(i) the authority which may function as the

disciplinary authority for the purpose of such

common proceedings;

(ii) the penalties specified in Rule 6 which such

disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose;

provided that such authority shall not impose the

penalties specified in clauses (vii) to (ix) of that rule if

that authority is subordinate to the Appointing

Authority; and

(iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 9 and

Rule 10 or Rule 11 shall be followed in the

proceedings.

76.As could be seen from the above, the Rules

specifically empower the Railways to conduct common

proceedings when two or more Railways servants are

concerned in any case, and this is obviously because

the Rule makers were acutely aware that there would be

cases where more than one railway servant would

jointly be involved in committing a misconduct and this

would therefore required that a common enquiry should

Page 39 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

be conducted as a matter of rule.

77.The fact that the procedure to conduct such an

enquiry has been clearly spelt out also leads to an

inference that once a misconduct is in relation to one

incident and this involves more than one Railways

servant, a common enquiry is the norm. If a common

enquiry for one incident is not conducted, there would

be severe prejudice to the employees, and it would also

be difficult to the Railways to identify the actual persons

involved in the misconduct. The present case is a clear

example as to why a common enquiry ought to have

been conducted.

78.We are constrained to make these observations in

a matter arising out of departmental proceedings

because of the manner in which the entire proceedings

have been conducted. Though the normal rule is of

limited interference in departmental proceedings, in a

case such as this, where arbitrariness is self-evident

and has severely prejudiced the petitioner, we are

Page 40 of 41

C/SCA/16392/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

constrained to intervene in the matter.

79.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the

impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority

imposing the punishment of removal from service

against the petitioner and its affirmation by the

Appellate Authority and the CAT are quashed.

80.The petitioner shall be entitled to all

consequential benefits, which shall be computed and

made over to the petitioner within a period of eight

weeks from today.

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

(J. L. ODEDRA, J)

Mehul Desai

Page 41 of 41