The main legal point established is that the High Court's interference with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is limited to cases of shockingly disproportionate punishment or procedural irregularity. The gravity of producing false and forged certificates and the question of trust in an employee were also emphasized.

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 660 of 2013 by which the High Court has partly allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the "original writ petitioner") directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the original writ petitioner without any back wages and other benefits by substituting the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the employer - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein original writ petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1982 as a casual employee. He moved an application seeking the position of Refueling Helper, wherein under the heading of qualifications, he mentioned that he has passed Secondary School Leaving Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "SSLC") in April, 1986 from Karnataka Secondary Education Board. That he was thereafter appointed as Helper as per the regularization policy regularizing the casual employees, inter alia, subject to the contents prescribed in the application form for employment being correct. At that stage also the original writ petitioner submitted SSLC of Karnataka Board bearing No. 206271 dated 19.05.1986.

2.1 In the year 2003, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Corporation received a complaint that the original writ petitioner had secured his job as Re-fueling Helper by submitting a false and forged SSLC. Similar complaint was also made to the police authorities also.

2.2 Despite repetitive requests and follow up by the authorities, original writ petitioner did not submit the original SSLC Certificate. On the contrary, the original writ petitioner sent a communication wherein it was mentioned that the original SSLC has been misplaced. Thereafter the Manager, ER advised original writ petitioner to obtain a duplicate copy of the original SSLC and to submit the same to the Manager, ER. However, he continued evading submission of the original certificate or even the Duplicate SSLC from Karnataka Board.

2.3 The Manager, ER thereafter requested the authorities of the Secondary Board to check up their records and confirm whether they had issued any marks certificate carrying details available on the photocopy of the SSLC marks sheet issued by them. In response to the same, the Board informed the authority that "as per the record, SSLC statement of marks for the year March, 1986 bearing Registration No. 206271 relate to one Agrahar Jayant S/o Satyanarayana A.L. DOB - 15.02.1968 and does not belong to Rajendra Dattaram Harmalkar S/o Datta Ram Harmalkar, DOB - 08.12.1962".

2.4 In the above circumstances, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the original writ petitioner. The original writ petitioner was served with the charge-sheet containing two charges which read as under:

"1. Wilful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another, of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.

2. Giving false information regarding one's age, father's name, qualifications or previous service at the time of employment."

2.5 The original writ petitioner replied to the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer held that both the aforesaid charges were proved and proposed the punishment of dismissal. After giving an opportunity to the original writ petitioner on having agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and after taking into consideration the gravity of the acts of misconduct proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services. The appeal preferred by the original writ petitioner came to be dismissed.

2.6 At this stage it is required to be noted that the original writ petitioner was also prosecuted by the Criminal Court, however the learned Trial Court acquitted him by giving benefit of do