JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The writ petitioner has challenged the approval of the punishment dated 4th/6th August 2004 and the promulgation of dismissal on 8th September 2004 and has prayed for setting aside the same and for reinstating him as Adhikari (Met).

2. While the writ petitioner was borne in the books of 700 Sqn (CG), Kolkata as Pradhan Navik(MET), a tentative charge sheet dated 27.11.2002 was served upon the petitioner which stated that the petitioner was guilty of making a false statement in a salary certificate prepared by him and he also forged the signature of Commandant (JG), S.C. Sharma in the salary certificate prepared by him.

3. Facts leading to the issuance of the charge sheet may be summarised as follows:

A representative from Citi Bank (Citi Corp.) came to 700 Sqn. (CG) for verification of salary certificate attached with the loan application of the petitioner. When the said salary certificate was shown to Commandant (JG), S.C. Sharma, he told the bank representative to forward the salary certificate under official forwarding letter. The matter was reported to the commanding officer and the commandant (JG) was ordered to investigate the matter and initiate disciplinary action. On completion of the Record of Enquiry the Punishment Approval Form (for short “PAF”) was forwarded recommending award of the punishment of dismissal from Coast Guard Service and deprivation of Good conduct Badge (Three). The Vice Admiral, Director General being the Approving Authority approved the award of the punishment of dismissal from Coast Guard service by an order dated 04.08.2004.

4. Challenging the said decision of the Approving Authority, the petitioner approached this Court.

5. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition drew the attention of the Court to the documents annexed to the application being CAN 11890 of 2016 and contended that the charge against the petitioner of forging the salary certificate has not been established and the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted based only on presumption. He contended that suspicion or presumption cannot be the substitute of proof in a domestic enquiry. In support of such contention, Mr. Majumdar relied upon a decision in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported at (2006) 4 SCC 713. Mr. Majumdar contended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in a domestic enquiry cannot be said to be conclusive and binding upon the disciplinary authority and such authority after considering the evidence has to decide whether the charges are proved or not. He relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. H.C. Goel reported at AIR 1964 (SC) 364 in support of such contention. Mr. Majumdar contended that since in an investigation started against S.C. Sharma, i.e., the 6th respondent herein, the petitioner who was then assisting the investigating officer as Law Section in charge did not co-operate with the 5th respondent in order to save the 6th respondent by white washing the evidence of guilt of the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent became biased against the petitioner. Mr. Majumdar contended that the action of the administrative authority was actuated by mala fides in as much as the 6th respondent acted in a biased manner. On the issue of malice, Mr. Majumdar relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Khajuria vs. Wockhardt Limited and Another reported at (2020) 3 SCC 86.

6. Mr. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents seriously disputed the submissions made by Mr. Majumdar. He contended that the offences committed by the petitioner were investigated in accordance with Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules 1983. The charges were heard by the Commanding Officer on the Offence Report and since prima facie evidence suggested involvement of the petitioner in commissio