Holding

The appeal is dismissed, confirming that the employee’s removal and dismissal orders are set aside and only a minor penalty such as withholding increments may be imposed.

Summary

The Gujarat High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Kandla Port Trust (now Deendayal Port Trust) against a single judge’s order that set aside the employee’s removal (July 2017) and dismissal (September 2018) and remanded the matter for a minor penalty. The employee, Sanjay Jagdishbhai Bhaty, had been charged under two separate charge‑sheets – one alleging falsification of educational qualifications and the other alleging filing a private complaint without permission and tampering with a confidential report. The court examined whether the employer could impose a second major penalty after the first had been stayed, whether the employee actually lacked the required journalism diploma, and whether there was proof of tampering or violation of conduct regulations. It held that the employer failed to prove the lack of qualification and the alleged tampering, and that the single judge was correct in limiting the penalty to a minor one such as withholding increments. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the matter was remanded for the disciplinary authority to impose only a minor penalty.

Issues considered

Whether the single judge erred in setting aside the removal and dismissal orders and remanding for a minor penalty.
Whether the employer could impose a second major penalty after the first penalty was stayed.
Whether the employee possessed the requisite educational qualification (diploma in journalism) as per recruitment rules.
Whether the employee tampered with a confidential report and violated conduct regulations.
Whether the court can interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority in disciplinary matters.
Whether an employee must obtain employer’s permission before filing a private complaint against a fellow employee.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicedismissal from serviceeducational qualificationstampering of documentsconduct regulationsminor penaltyletters patent appealhigh court

Judgment

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 15th year of age

Name of School/ College with full Date of Dave of Examination
address entering leaving passed
MODEL H.S. School Bhopal 1991 1996-97 Intermediate
AFIA College, Bhopal 1997 1990 B.A.
Bharatiya Patraparita Sansthan, 1990 1991 Diploma in
Barely Journalism
The Inst.of Labour Studies, 1992 1993 Diploma in
Bareilly 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 1997 Diploma in Social
University 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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/07/2026 17:06:15

Page 23 of 23