C/LPA/1077/2021 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/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1077 of 2021

In

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/10925/2015

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

KANDLA PORT TRUST (NOW DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST)

Versus

SANJAY JAGDISHBHAI BHATY

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

Appearance:

MR MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE and MR DHAVAL VYAS,

SENIOR ADVOCATE for M/S. VYAS ASSOCIATES (1559) for the

PETITIONER No.1

PARTY IN PERSON (5000) for the RESPONDENT No.1

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

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 appeal is filed by Kandla Port Trust (hereinafter

to be referred to as “the employer”) challenging the order

of the learned Single Judge by which, the learned Single

Judge has partly allowed the writ petition of Sanjay

Jagdishbhai Patil (hereinafter to be referred to as “the

employee”) and set aside the penalty of removal from

service inflicted on 6.7.2017 and also the punishment of

dismissal from service on 14.9.2018 a year thereafter

against the employee and remanding the matter to the

employer with a direction to impose a minor penalty in

lieu of the extreme punishment that had been imposed

earlier.

Page 1 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

2.The necessary facts, which has led to the filing of

this Letters Patent Appeal, are as follows:

i. On 27.7.2015, a major penalty proceeding was

initiated against the employee.

ii.Four charges laid against the employee in the

charge-sheet dated 27.7.2015 (hereinafter to be

referred as “the first charge-sheet”) were as

follows:

STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED

AGAINST SHRI SANJAY BHATY TP&PRO KNADLA PORT

TRUST

Article-I

Shri Sanjay Bhaty. while functioning as TP&PRO, KPT, had

been asked, vide letter No.GA/PS/4322/1395 dated

2.5.2015, to produce all the original certificates pertaining

to his educational qualifications, including School Leaving,

Caste Certificate etc. and also submit duly filled in

personal data form.

Article - II

Shri Sanjay Bhaty by the act of non-production of all the

original certificates as sought, vide letter

No.GA/PS/4322/1395 dated 02.05.2015, with an intention

to hide the facts about his credentials. created impediment

in the process of verification of his said certificates based

on which he was appointed as TP&PRO in 1997.

Article-III

Shri Sanjay Bhaty secured employment as TP&PRO in KPT

in the year 1997 without possession of requisite essential

qualifications as per the Recruitment Rule prescribed for

the post of TP&PRO, KPT i.e, "graduate of a recognized

Page 2 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

university and should possess recognized degree or

diploma in journalism".

Article - IV

Shri Sanjay Bhaty, while submitting the Attestation Form

on 15.3.1997, misled the KPT Management by submitting

an unacceptable and unrecognized "Certificate on

Journalism", bearing No.5651 dated 24.3.1994 of

Bharatiya Patrakarita Sansthan, Bareilly, UP, and obtained

his employment to the post of TP&PRO, KPT, in a deceitful

manner.

iii.An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into

the aforementioned charges and the Inquiry

Officer, after conducting an inquiry, submitted a

report on 24.11.2016 holding that all the four

charges laid against the employee had been

proved.

iv.The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the

inquiry report and the representation of the

employee, came to the conclusion that the

employee was required to be imposed with a

major penalty of removal from service with

immediate effect. This order in relation to the first

charge-sheet was passed on 6.7.2017.

v. It may be pertinent to state here that the

employee had already approached this Court

challenging the order of suspension and the

Articles of Charge, and he proceeded to seek for

amendment of the prayer, which was granted, and

Page 3 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

he was permitted to challenge this major penalty

of removal from service.

vi.This order of removal from service was, in fact,

stayed by the learned Single Judge.

vii.It may be pertinent to state here that during the

pendency of these proceedings, another charge-

sheet dated 18.2.2016 was issued against the

employee (hereinafter to be referred to as “the

second charge-sheet”), in which four charges

were levelled against the employee, which read as

follows:

STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED

AGAINST SHRI SANJAY BHATY, TP&PRO, KANDLA PORT

TRUST

Article - I

Shri Sanjay Bhaty, while functioning as TP&PRO, KPT, has

filed a private complaint against Shri P. Ramjee, Chief

Vigilance Officer, KPT, in the Hon'ble Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide Criminal Inquiry

No.322/2015, without seeking permission of the

Competent Authority.

Article - II

Shri Sanjay Bhaty, TP&PRO, submitted a report in the

matter of Case No.322/2015 in the Court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham, on affidavit,

claiming to be a report of Dr. G.S. Rao, COM OOT Vadinar

in the contract of Dredging work, carried out by M/s Jaisu

Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. during the period from

27.12.2010 to 26.01.2013, alongwith other documents

without any authority.

Article - III

Page 4 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Shri Sanjay Bhaty, TP&PRO, filed a tampered / forged

report claiming to be the report of Dr. G.S. Rao, COM,

OOT Vadinar, KPT, on Affidavit in the matter of Case

No.322/2015 before the Hon'ble Court of Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham, with-a-view-to-mislead

the court and malign the image of Shri P. Ramjee, CVO,

KPT, and the KPT Management.

Article - IV

Shri Sanjay Bhaty, TP&PRO, misused his position by

tampering/forging an official report of Dr. G.S. Rao, COM,

OOT Vadinar, KPT, claiming to be prepared by Dr. G.S.

Rao, in connection with the contract of Dredging Work,

carried out by M/s Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd,

during the period from 27.12.2010 to 26.1.2013, which is

a confidential one, and submitted before the Hon'ble Court

of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham,

unauthorizedly.

viii.In respect of this charge-sheet, an inquiry was

conducted by the Inquiry Officer and a report

holding that the three charges, i.e. Articles-II, III

and IV were proved. It was held by the Inquiry

Officer that the first charge was not held as the

same was repetition of the charge dated

3.11.2015.

ix.The employee submitted his representation to the

inquiry report dated 24.11.2016 and also to the

inquiry report dated 5.11.2016.

x. Kandla Port Trust, by virtue of the stay granted to

the punishment of removal from service,

proceeded to consider the reply given by the

employee in respect of the inquiry report

Page 5 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

submitted to the second charge-sheet and also his

representation and proceeded to impose a major

penalty of dismissal from service dated 14.9.2018.

xi.Thus, as against the first charge-sheet, a major

penalty of removal from service was imposed on

6.7.2017 and in respect of the second charge-

sheet, a penalty of dismissal from service was

imposed on the employee on 14.9.2018.

xii.It may be pertinent to state here that after the

employee had been removed from service, he has

been imposed with another penalty of dismissal

from service.

xiii.The employee once again sought for and was

permitted to amend his prayer in the writ petition,

which had been initially filed for impugning an

order of suspension, and to also challenge this

imposition of the punishment of dismissal from

service dated 14.9.2018.

xiv.In short, this writ petition filed by the employee

relates to his challenge to the two punishments

that have been imposed against him, i.e. the major

penalty of removal from service dated 6.7.2017

and the second penalty of dismissal from service

dated 14.9.2018.

xv.The learned Single Judge has held that it was

Page 6 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

wrong on the part of the employer to have passed

the second order of dismissal from service in the

year 2018, after having earlier passed an order of

removal from service on 6.7.2017 and has also

come to the conclusion that the charges laid

under the first charge-sheet, that the employee

did not possess the necessary educational

qualifications, could not have been made, having

regard to the fact that the employee had worked

for more than 18 years, i.e. from 1997 till 2015.

xvi.The learned Single Judge has also recorded a

finding that there was no proof to come to the

conclusion that the employee had tampered with

the confidential report, as had been alleged in the

second charge-sheet.

xvii.Consequently, the learned Single Judge has set

aside both the orders of punishment dated

6.7.2017 and 14.9.2018.

xviii.Ultimately, the learned Single Judge has come to

the following conclusion:

“9.20.From the above findings arrived at by the inquiry

officer to the effect that the petitioner has violated

Regulations 3(8)(i), 3(8) (iv), 3(8)(vi) and 8 of the

Regulations, 1964 cannot be accepted. Therefore,

considering the above Regulations, the responded-KPT

could not have imposed the major penalty / punishment

upon the petitioner under Regulation 9 of Regulations,

2004 by passing the order of removal / dismissal from

service which shall act as a disqualification from future

Page 7 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

employment. Considering more than 20 years of service of

the petitioner put-up with respondent-KPT, at the best the

petitioner could have been imposed the minor punishment

or penalty, such as withholding of annual or yearly

increment as per Clause 9(xv) of the Regulations, 2004.

10. In view of the above discussion, in the facts of the

present case, the respondent- KPT could not have passed

the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner dated

14th September, 2018, after passing the order of removal

from service dated 6th July, 2017. Therefore, the

impugned order dated 14th September, 2018 is required

to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to

be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to

reconsider the case of the petitioner to impose the minor

penalty / punishment as indicated herein above of

withholding of annual / yearly increment of the petitioner

with future effect.”

xix.In other words, the learned Single Judge, though

has come to the conclusion that the findings of the

Inquiry Officer could not be accepted, has,

however, observed that, at best, the employee

could have been imposed only with a minor

penalty, such as withholding of annual or yearly

increment with future effect, and has, accordingly,

remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority

for imposing such a minor penalty.

xx.The employee has accepted this order and has not

chosen to prefer any appeal regarding the remand

of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for

imposition of a minor penalty.

xxi.However, the employer has filed this appeal

challenging the order of the learned Single Judge,

Page 8 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

by which, the two punishments that the employer

had imposed have been set aside.

3.Learned Senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi as well as

learned Senior counsel Mr. Dhaval Vyas appearing for the

appellant-employer contended that the learned Single

Judge has fundamentally re-appreciated the evidence as if

he was an Appellate Authority and has held that the

charges had not been established, which is impermissible

in law. Both the learned Senior counsels argued that in

disciplinary matters, it is settled law that merely because

an alternate view was possible, the appreciation of

evidence by the Inquiry Officer and his acceptance by the

Disciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with.

4.Learned Senior counsels pointed out that there were

serious charges levelled against the employee and which

was held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer on

appreciation of the evidence adduced and in such a

situation, the learned Single Judge could not have come

to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer

were unacceptable and as a consequence, the orders of

punishment were liable to be quashed.

5.Learned Senior counsels pointed out that the

observation of the learned Single Judge that the employer

after imposing the penalty of removal from service on

6.7.2017 could not have proceeded to impose a second

Page 9 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

penalty of dismissal from service on 14.9.2018 when the

first punishment had been stayed by this Court would be

incorrect.

6.Learned Senior counsels submitted that as the

imposition of penalty of removal from service had been

stayed, thereby meaning that the employee continued to

be in service and since he continued to be in service, the

employer was possessing the power to proceed against

the employee in respect of the other charges and could

have concluded those proceedings also. It is contended

that there were multiple inquiries being conducted

against the employee and unless a specific order of stay

was granted for the conduct of the remaining inquiries

after the punishment had been imposed in one of the

inquiries, the employer could not be faulted for

proceeding with the another pending enquiry.

7.Learned Senior counsels submitted that as a matter

of fact, apart from these two inquiries, there were also

several other inquiries against the employee and after the

punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the

employee, the other inquiries have in fact been kept in

abeyance.

8.The respondent- employee, who appeared in person,

submitted that there was absolutely no justification for

initiation of an inquiry against him and the initiation of

the inquiry was fundamentally initiated, because he had

Page 10 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

represented to various authorities regarding the

wrongdoings by certain named officials working for his

employer. He submitted that the employer was basically

punishing him because he had taken up the cause of

preventing wrongdoing by the employees, which was

detrimental to the interest of the employer.

9.The party-in-person also sought to contend that after

working for 18 years, having been recruited by a

selection committee, the charge that he did not possess

the appropriate educational qualifications at the time of

appointment was wholly untenable and the learned Single

Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the charges made

against him in the first charge-sheet were unacceptable.

10.The employee also argued that as far as the second

charge-sheet was concerned, it had been clear, i.e.

regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings by him

and the submission of a tampered confidential report,

that there was no rule required for an employee to take

permission for lodging a private complaint against an

individual working for his employer and alleging that he

was guilty of wrongdoing. He also submitted that he had

not mentioned anything about the report in his affidavit

and, therefore, there was no question of him relying upon

the report, which had been produced along with the

complaint.

Page 11 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

11.The employee submitted that the allegation that he

had tampered with the report had not at all been

established and, therefore, the order of the learned

Single Judge could not be found fault with.

12.In the light of the above, the only question that

would arise for consideration is whether the order of the

learned Single Judge in setting aside the two punishments

imposed on the employee and remanding the matter to

the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of a minor

penalty is correct or not?

13.The first charge-sheet dated 27.7.2015 sought to lay

four charges against the employee. These charges

basically were to the effect that the employee had been

called upon to produce all the original certificates

pertaining to his educational qualifications and also

submit the duly filled-up personal data form and the

employee had failed to produce all the original

certificates, with the intention of hiding his true facts

regarding his credentials.

14.It was sought to be alleged against the employee

that he did not satisfy the requirement of the educational

qualification prescribed under the rules, i.e. he was not

graduate of a recognized university, and he should

possess a recognised degree or diploma in Journalism. It

was alleged against the employee that while submitting

Page 12 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

the attestation form dated 15.3.1997, he had misled the

employer by submitting an unacceptable and

unrecognised certificate of Journalism and secured his

employment in a deceitful manner.

15.At the outset, it is to be noticed here that the

employee had been appointed in the year 1997 and after

extracting service from him for a period of nearly 18

years, an allegation is sought to be made that he did not

possess the necessary educational qualifications for being

appointed.

16.In fact, the essence of the charge and also the

arguments advanced was that he did not have a

recognised degree or diploma in Journalism and he only

had a certificate of Journalism which was issued by one

entity, called Bharatiya Patrakarita Sansthan , and,

therefore, he had obtained his recruitment in a deceitful

manner.

17.It is not in dispute that the original application form

submitted by the employee was not produced during the

course of the inquiry. What was produced was an

attestation form, said to have been filled up by the

employee. In the column relating to his education

qualifications, it has been mentioned as follows:

Page 13 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Educational qualifications showing place of education with year in school

and Colleges since 15

th

year of age

Name of School/ College with full

address

Date of

entering

Dave of

leaving

Examination

passed

MODEL H.S. School Bhopal 1991 1996-97 Intermediate

AFIA College, Bhopal 1997 1990 B.A.

Bharatiya Patraparita Sansthan,

Barely

1990 1991 Diploma in

Journalism

The Inst.of Labour Studies,

Bareilly

1992 1993 Diploma in

Labour Law

B’Bay Inst. Of MGMT, Bombay 1993 1994 Diploma in

Marketing &

MGMT

Hamidiya College, Bhopal 1996 M.A. in

Economics

DIR Distance Education Bhopal

University

1997 Diploma in Social

Work

18.As could be seen from the above, the employee

stated that he had acquired a BA degree from Asia

College in Bhopal. The employee also stated that he had

obtained a diploma in Journalism from the Bharatiya

Patrakarita Sansthan apart from the three other other

diplomas that he had in Labour Law, Marketing

Management, Social Work and also a Master's Degree in

Economics.

19.The assertion of the employer, however, is that the

employee had only produced a certificate of Journalism

which could not be considered as a diploma in Journalism.

It is clear from the above that the employee did produce a

certificate which, according to him, satisfied the

educational qualifications prescribed by the recruitment

Page 14 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

rule of having a diploma in Journalism.

20.The fact as to whether this certificate of Journalism

was or was not a diploma, ought to have been established

by the employer with reference to credible material, such

as a letter from the competent authority that the

certificate of Journalism produced by the employee was

not amounting to a degree or a diploma in Journalism.

21.In fact, the employer should have secured material

to indicate that there was an authority constituted to

oversee the field of education in Journalism and that

authority ought to have certified that the course pursued

and passed by the employee as per the certificate

produced by him did not qualify as a degree or a diploma

in Journalism. To put it differently, an entity, such as a

university which would have the right to oversee the field

of education in Journalism, ought to have certified that

the employee did not possess a diploma in Journalism and

that the certificate produced by him did not tantamount

to a diploma.

22.Admittedly, there is no such effort made by the

employer to secure any material from the competent

authority. The reasoning of the Inquiry Officer to come to

the conclusion that the employee did not possess a

certificate of a diploma in Journalism, is as follows.

Page 15 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

“5.2.Article III & Article IV

Educational Qualification shown in all the three documents

Exh P-8, Exh P-9 and Exh P-11, is the same as:

"Qualification: Essentials should be a graduate of recognized

university and should possess recognized degree or diploma in

journalism. And (b) should possess good knowledge of English,

Gujrati and Hindi and should be able to write press notes,

scripts for publicity material in these languages."

5.2.1 The C.O. has admitted that he submitted a certificate

'Patrakarita Praman Patra' issued by, Bhartiya Patrakarita

Sansthan, Barelly (U.P.), (Exh P-5) at the time of his interview

and got the same checked as Post Graduate Diploma in

Journalism, against one of the requirement of essential

qualification for the post of T.P.& P.R.O.. This has been

pointed out by PW-3 that there is no mention on the said

certificate that the same is "Diploma in Journalism". PW-3 has

not been cross - examined on this point. The P.O. has pointed

out in his brief that there is no mention that the certificate is

recognized by any university, or board, or central/state

Government and also it bears no signature of Registrar/ Vice

Chancellor of University or any authority on behalf of

Central/State Govt. The C.O. on the basis of dictionary

meaning of the word 'Diploma' in Hindi, has explained that

'Patrakarita PramanPatra' is "Diploma in Journalism" and has

stated that the expression of the P.O. is assumption and

presumption not supported by any rule or even by a sample

copy of such Diploma in Journalism. The C.O. in his defence

brief has stated that hypothetical version of the P.O. has no

force of law. After evaluation of the points raised by the P.O

and arguments of the C.O., I found that point raised by the

P.O. is based on his experience and observation in daily life

and can't be said that it has no force of law. It is true that any

Certificate, Diploma or Degree is issued in the name of

University, Board or Council. In some cases, autonomous

institutes issue the degree or diploma but in such cases, name

of authority giving recognition is necessarily mentioned.. It is

evident that "Patrakarita PramanPatra" (Exh P-5) issued by

"Bhartiya Patrakarita Sansthan" has no mention anywhere on

the certificate about any recognition or "Diploma". This is an

important known fact that Certificate of recognised Diploma in

Journalism can only be secured by passing examination of the

course 'recognized Diploma in Journalism'. It is evident from

the text of 'Patrakarita Praman Patra' that the same has been

issued by the Bhartiya Patrakarita Sansthan for passing 'One

Year Journalism Training Course'. Therefore, neither name of

the Course is 'Diploma in Journalism' nor the Certificate

issued is 'Diploma in Journalism'.

Page 16 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

5.2.2 The C.O. has admitted that Bhartiya Patrakarita

Sansthan is in existence since 16/05/1983 and registered

under Society Registration Act 1860. And also one of the

object of the society is to impart training and to issue

certificate to those, who are successful in the training course.

This is also admitted that, Renowned and Reputed institutions

are run with their registration under the Society Registration

Act 1860. But, this is a truth and known fact that, Registrar

Societies can register a Society to run educational institute,

but can't give recognition to Educational Institute or Degree

or Diploma. Therefore, the institute registered under Societies

Registration Act is required to get affiliation with University,

or recognition of Board or any other competent Authorities to

run recognized courses. Therefore, neither "One year

journalism training course" is a recognized course nor the

"Bhartiya Patrakarita Sanstahan" is a recognized educational

institute. And therefore, the “Patrakarita Praman-Patra" is not

a Recognised Diploma in Journalism.

5.2.3 The C.O. has stated vide Para 10 of the Attestation Form

(Exh P-7) that he joined "Bhartiya Patrakarita Sansthan" in

1990 and left the institute 1991. The "Patrakarita Praman

Patra" Exh P-5, reveals that the C.O. passed the 'One year

Journalism Training Course' in December 1989 and the

Certificate was issued in the year 1994. The Exh E-1 reveals

that the C.O. passed B.A. Final Examination in the month

Oct/Nov 1990. Therefore, the C.O. has passed the examination

of One year Journalism Correspondence Training course along

with the B.A. three year Educational Course. Thus, there is

inconsistency and contradictions in the statement and

therefore, the C.O. has not given complete and correct

information in the Attestation Form.

5.2.4 The way the C.O. has argued by giving dictionary

meaning of Diploma, that Patrakarita Praman-Patra is a

recognized Diploma in Journalism, it is evident that the C.O.

attempted to deceive the Inquiry officer to believe that the

Patrakarita Praman Patra is a recognized Diploma in

Journalism. The C.O. has, time and again argued that his

certificates were verified at every stage at the time of his

interview for the post. He has insisted the same at the time of

his examination during the inquiry. Therefore, it is concluded,

that he managed at every stage by misrepresentation, in

somewhat similar fashion, to accept the Certificate of

'Patrakarita Praman-Patra' issued after passing examination of

'One year journalism training course' of 'Bhartiya Patrakarita

Sansthan, Barelly (U.P.)', as Post-Graduate Diploma in

Journalism and got employment in Kandla Port as TP &

PRO, by deceitful means.”

23.As could be seen from the above reasoning, the

Page 17 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

Inquiry Officer has interpreted the certificate that the

employee had produced and concluded that it did not

have the nomenclature of a diploma in Journalism and the

certificate also did not state that it was a diploma in

Journalism and, therefore, the possessing of the requisite

educational qualification was not present. The Inquiry

Officer has gone on to state that the authority which had

issued the certificate was only a society registered under

the Society Registration Act and such a society cannot

give recognition to an educational institute or grant a

degree or diploma and it was necessary that the institute

ought to have secured an affiliation from a university or

any other Board or competent authority to run the

recognised courses.

24.It is, therefore, clear that the Inquiry Officer was

aware that it was necessary for a university or a Board or

some authority to grant recognition to admit students and

issue a recognised diploma in Journalism. This, therefore,

presupposes that the employer had to establish that the

certificate that the employee had produced related to an

entity which did not have the appropriate affiliation from

a university or recognition from the concerned Board of

education. In the absence of such evidence, the Inquiry

Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the

employee did not possess the educational qualification.

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

Page 18 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

appointing authority after perusing the qualifications of

the employee was satisfied that the certificate of

Journalism was adequate for the job to which the

employee had applied. If the documents produced by the

employee had been assessed by a competent committee

and the committee was satisfied that the employee was

educationally qualified, a charge that the employee did

not possess the educational qualification cannot be raised

at a later point of time i.e., after extracting work from

him for 18 years.

26.In the instant case, as found by the learned Single

Judge, the employer has raised the bogey of the employee

not possessing an education qualification nearly two

decades after he had been appointed. Admittedly, there is

no allegation made that he misrepresented the employer

by producing fake certificates to the effect that he

possessed the requisite educational qualifications.

27.The employer does not dispute the fact that the

employee did produce a certificate of Journalism and

there had been no attempt to produce a non-existent or a

fake diploma or a fake credential. If a prospective

employee had produced the documents in his possession

and he stated that they met the requirement of the

qualifications prescribed under the rules and this was

accepted by the employer, the employer would be

estopped from contending that the employee did not

Page 19 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

possess the educational qualification more so after

extracting the work from him for 18 years. It is, therefore,

clear that the learned Single Judge was justified in

coming to the conclusion that it was not proper on the

employer to have laid a charge against the employee that

he did not possess the adequate educational

qualifications.

28.As regards the second charge-sheet that the

employee had lodged a private complaint against another

employee of the employer without securing a permission

and while lodging this complaint, he tampered with a

confidential report, at the outset, on a pointed query by

the Court, the learned Senior counsels were unable to

point to any rule governing the conduct of the employees,

which required an employee to secure permission before

proceeding against another individual in a court of law.

29.Admittedly, the complaint lodged by the employee

was not against the employer and was against a

particular official of the employer and the complaint was

that there have been severe wrongdoings by that other

employee. So, if there is no rule which requires securing

the permission of the employer for initiation of a legal

proceeding, including a criminal proceeding, the said

charge would be without any basis at all.

30.As regards the allegation that a tampered

Page 20 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

confidential report has been furnished, it has been found

by the learned Single Judge that there was no proof to

show that the employee had tempered with the

confidential report and he has also found that the report

had not been placed before the Court with an ulterior

motive.

31.It may be pertinent to state here that the employer

contending that the employee had violated the Regulation

8 of the Kandla Port Employees (Conduct) Regulations,

1964. which barred any employee from communicating

directly or indirectly any official document or information

to any person and he was also barred from giving the

document relating to the employer.

32.It is to be stated here that the submission of report

to a court, in support of a criminal complaint, cannot be

considered as violating the bar to communicate with any

other person regarding the documents of employer.

Giving the documents to a Court cannot be equated to

communicate with any person.

33.It is to be stated here that the purport of the rule is

to ensure that the interests of the employer is not

compromised by giving documents which could affect the

prospects of the employer. Giving a document along with

a complaint to a Court of law alleging that there were

some severe irregularities in the employer's organization

Page 21 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

cannot be equated to flouting the Regulation which

prohibits communication with a third party so as to

safeguard the interest of the employer. The complaint,

even according to the employer, was alleging that the

interest of the employer was being affected by the

wrongful conduct of an employee. It is, therefore, clear

that this allegation would also be improper.

34.It may also be stated here that in what manner the

document had been tampered with is not clearly

established. It is merely stated that the document was

meddled at 32 places. There is nothing on record to

indicate as to in whose custody, the confidential report

was available and how the employee had gained access to

the original report and had tampered with it.

35.A perusal of the private complaint that the employee

had lodged would also indicate that there is no specific

reference to the report as such, and only the report has

been enclosed to the complaint. It is, therefore, clear that

on an affidavit, the employee had not made any assertions

regarding the authenticity of the report. In this view of

the matter, the finding of the learned Single Judge that

there was no proof to show that the employee had

tampered with the confidential report cannot be found

fault with.

36.It may also be pertinent to notice here that the

Page 22 of 23

C/LPA/1077/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2026

employer, after passing an order of removal from service

in 2017, has proceeded to pass a subsequent order of

dismissal from service in the year 2018. This would only

indicate that the employer wanted to get rid of the

employee in one way or the other and was not prepared

to await the outcome of the writ petition in which the first

order of removal from service was yet to be adjudicated.

37.Be that as it may, in our view, there is no ground

made out to entertain the appeal and disturb the order of

the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore,

DISMISSED.

Sd/-

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

Sd/-

(J. L. ODEDRA, J)

OMKAR

Page 23 of 23