JUDGMENT :

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in the present appeals is a judgment dated 12.05.2023 passed in a writ petition being W.P.A. 2180 of 2005 preferred by Ravindra Kumar Singh (in short, Ravindra) primarily praying for the following relief:

‘Issue a writ of/in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and each of them and/or their concerned employees, staff, servants, subordinates and/or authorities and each of them to forthwith cancel and/or quash and/or rescind and/or recall and/or revoke the impugned genform of dismissal dated September 8, 2004 and approval of the same being August 4/6, 2004 as in Annexures “P38” and “P40” and to forthwith reinstate your Petitioner as Adhikari (Met) in 700 Squadron, Bagjola with all benefits and arrears pay, emoluments and perquisites without there being any break in service.’

2. The facts in brief are that while Ravindra was borne on the books of 700 Squadron, Bagjola, Kolkata (in short, the Unit) as Pradhan Navik (Met), it was alleged by one Sri. S.C.Sharma, Commandant (JG) that a representative of Citibank visited him at office along with the salary certificate of Ravindra, P/Nvk, 00927-M for verification. On realising that the particulars in the certificate like basic pay etc. were inflated and the signature of certifying officer, i.e. Comdt (JG) SC Sharma, was a forged one, he requested the bank staff to forward the documents under official covering letter. Thereafter one Mr. Manoj Pokle, an official of e-service, informed him that the bank has already made a letter in such regard on 28.10.2002. Since no correspondence was received till 18.11.2002, the Unit again contacted the firm and it was intimated that the letter was delivered through courier service to L.G. Sajju on 09.11.2002, however, the letter could not be traced after that. Subsequent thereto, a charge sheet dated 27.11.2002 was issued against Ravindra by the Commanding Officer (in short, CO) under Section 33 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (in short, the 1978 Act). For further examination and ascertaining the facts of the case, the loan application and the salary certificate were sent to the office of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata along with specimen signatures of the Ravindra and SC Sharma. The Examiner opined that the signatures on loan application are that of Ravindra but with regard to the salary certificate, that being of a poor xerographic reproduction, the Examiner expressed his inability to give a definite opinion regarding its authorship. Thereafter by a memo dated 24.12.2002, the CO nominated an officer for recording of evidence. The Record of Evidence (in short, ROE) was prepared and certified in terms of Rule 23 of the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 1983 (in short, 1983 Rules) and forwarded to the CO, who upon re- hearing in terms of Rule 26 (2) (b) of the 1983 Rules incorporated a third charge and submitted the Punishment Approval Form (in short, PAF). The said PAF was thereafter scrutinized by Senior Law Officer/Commandant in the light of the recommendations dated 12.02.2004 and 19.02.2004 of the intermediatory authorities in the chain of command being Sreekumar, Dy. Director (EPS) and the Director (Personnel) respectively and opinion was forwarded to the Director General (in short, DG) vide memo dated 30.07.2004. Thereafter the DG vide memo dated 04.08.2004 set aside the third charge but approved the punishment of ‘dismissal from Coast Guard service’ and the said punishment was proclaimed vide memo dated 08.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, Ravindra approached this Court.

3. The writ petition upon contested hearing was disposed of by a judgment delivered on 12.05.2023. The operative part of the said judgment runs as follows:

‘For all the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. The order of the approving authority dated 4^th August, 2004 and the proclamation dated 8^th September 2004 are set aside and quashed giving liberty to the appro