IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1651 of 2017 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11617 of 1994 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

DY CHAIRMAN & ORS.

Versus KANCHAN NAVINKUMAR VINAYAK ==========================================================

Appearance:

ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3,4 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.

Darshan M. Varandani for the respondent.

2.This appeal filed under Letters Patent, 1865 was admitted by order dated 08.08.2019 on condition of Rs.5 lakh to be deposited with the Registry.

3.The appellants – Kandla Port Trust issued an advertisement for recruiting eligible candidates to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 1989. One of the requirements besides the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement was experience of five years in any Government or private undertaking.

4.The respondent was selected for the post of Office Superintendent and was appointed by order dated 09.11.1989.

5.Charge-sheet was issued on 17.07.1992 upon the respondent on the ground of furnishing false experience certificate at the time of his appointment because the respondent had shown an overlapping experience of four months so as to secure the employment. The Statement of Article of Charge reads as under:

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I.

That Smt. Kanchan N. Vinayak, Office Supdt. at the time of her initial appointment in the said capacity in the KDLB, furnished false information and submitted a false certificate to the effect that she worked as Office incharge in M/s. Triveni Electronics Tube Factory & Co., Delhi for the period from 5/8/1978 to 18/2/1981, as per the details give in the imputation of misconduct in support of article of charge vide Annexure II. She has, therefore, exhibited gross misconduct by her failure not only in maintaining absolute integrity as required under Regulation, 3(1)(i) of the KDLB Employees (Conduct) Regulations, but also behaving in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of the KDLB in violation of Regulation 3(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Regulations.

She has further ignored the warning No.3 indicated in Annexure III of the Attestation form which was filled by her in her own handwriting and submitted to the office on 2/11/1989, in furnishing false information and hence, liable to be dealt with under the said warning.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II.

That the aforesaid Smt. Kanchan N. Vinayak, in filling item No.11(a) of Attestation form in her own handwriting, falsely stated that she worked as Jr. Clerk in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd, for the period from 5/1/1983 to 25/11/1985 and as a Teacher in Mount Carmel High School, Gandhidham from 29/7/1985 to 4/4/1987, showing an over laping experience of over 4 months to cook up the required experience for the post of Office Supdtt in the KDLB with an ulterior motive to secure employment as Office Supdtt, in KDLB by false declaration.

She has, therefore, exhibited gross misconduct by her failure not only in maintaining absolute integrity as required under Regulations, but also behaving in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of the KDLB in violation of Regulation 3(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Regulations.”

6.The Inquiry Officer after conducting the departmental inquiry held that the two charges levelled against the respondent had been proved. Memorandum along with Inquiry report was provided to the respondent.

7.The disciplinary authori