Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 976 (GUJ)

K. S. BASATHIA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-10-22

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “25(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt. 22.5.2008 and order dt.11.10.2005 and direct the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits with 12% interest.” 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioner was appointed in the Gujarat Administrative Services, Class-I, in December 1989. During his posting as Deputy District Development Officer, Amreli, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.08.1992. After about one year, on 16.07.1993, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for holding a departmental inquiry. The charges in brief were as under: Charge-I Shri K.S.Basathia, former Deputy District Development Officer, Amreli has committed serious misconduct amounting moral turpitude and unbecoming of a Govt. Servant with the trainee nurses, mentioned in the statement of imputation, of Female Health Workers Nursing School, Amreli and has, thereby, violated Rules 3(1)(3) of Gujarat State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971. Charge-II He has misused different Govt. Vehicles for his personal work as mentioned in the statement of imputation and in order to conceal it, he made false entries in the logbook for travelling during period 11.07.1992 to 14.07.1992 in the vehicle No. 6438 and prepared a false record and has shown dishonesty in receiving daily travelling allowances wrongfully whereby has committed fraud with the Government in violation of Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 for which he is responsible. 2.2 The appellant filed reply dated 24.11.1993 and denied the charges. The State Government did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the appellant and appointed Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Gujarat and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department (hereinafter referred to as “the inquiry officer”) to inquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. After conducting detailed inquiry in the matter, the inquiry officer submitted report dated 14.11.1995 with the conclusion that neither of the charges has been proved against the appellant. The State Government did not accept the report and passed order dated 1.10.1996 under Rule 10(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, vide which the matter was remitted to the inquiry officer. The latter after conducting fresh inquiry, submitted report dated 31.12.1998 with finding that the charges have not been proved against the appellant. The State Government did not accept the report and passed order dated 1.10.1996 under Rule 10(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, vide which the matter was remitted to the inquiry officer. The latter after conducting fresh inquiry, submitted report dated 31.12.1998 with finding that the charges have not been proved against the appellant. 2.3 The State Government accepted the findings and conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer in respect of charge No.1 but partly disagreed with him in regard to his conclusion qua charge No.1. Accordingly, notice dated 16.3.2001 was issued to the appellant proposing to take action against him by treating charge No.1 as partly proved. The reasons recorded by the State Government for its disagreement with the findings and conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer in respect of charge No.1 were also communicated to the appellant. In his reply dated 20.04.2001, the appellant pleaded that in view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer he should be exonerated. He also pleaded that the report of the hand writing expert, which had been obtained at his back, could not be taken into consideration for holding him guilty. 2.4 A reply was filed by the petitioner on 24.11.1993 denying the charges. Having not accepted the explanation, the State Government appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges against the petitioner. On 14.11.1995, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report concluding that both the charges were not proved. The State Government did not accept the report of the inquiry officer and passed an order on 01.10.1996 under Rule10(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Discipline & Appeal Rules) by which the matter was remitted to the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer on conducting a fresh inquiry, submitted a report on 31.12.1998 once again holding that the charges have not been proved. 2.5 The State Government accepted the findings and conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer but disagreed as far as charge with regard to charge 1 as being not proved. With regard to Charge No.2, the disciplinary authority had accepted the Inquiry Officer’s exoneration of the petitioner. On 16.03.2001, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner proposing to take action against the petitioner and asking him to show cause and respond to the disagreement with regard to charge No.1. The petitioner filed a reply on 20.04.2001. With regard to Charge No.2, the disciplinary authority had accepted the Inquiry Officer’s exoneration of the petitioner. On 16.03.2001, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner proposing to take action against the petitioner and asking him to show cause and respond to the disagreement with regard to charge No.1. The petitioner filed a reply on 20.04.2001. On the reply so filed, by an order dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner was removed from service. 2.6 The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No. 9246 of 2002. By a judgment and order dated 26.07.2004, the petition was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 34 of 2005. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 22.03.2005, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and after an extensive discussion allowed the appeal. The order of punishment of removal from service dated 11.09.2002 was set aside and a direction was given to the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 2.7 The State Government issued a show cause notice dated 21.06.2005 asking the petitioner to remain present pursuant to the order of the Letters Patent Appeal. By an order dated 11.10.2005, the State Government once again passed an order of removal from service. The petitioner took the order in review before the State Government and by a communication dated 22.05.2008, the State Government rejected the review, hence the petition. 3. Heard Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil, learned advocate appearing for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP for the State. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate submitted that what is apparent from the chronology of events is that on two occasions i.e. on 14.11.1995 and 31.12.1998, the inquiry officer on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record had exonerated the petitioner of the two charges. He submitted that after the first exoneration by the inquiry officer’s report of 14.11.1995, the State Government by an order dated 01.10.1996 remitted the matter to the inquiry officer with certain observations inasmuch as with regard to charge no. 1, since the original diary was not produced by the Presenting Officer and only four of the 12 witnesses had remained present it was necessary to recall the witnesses and produce the original diary. 1, since the original diary was not produced by the Presenting Officer and only four of the 12 witnesses had remained present it was necessary to recall the witnesses and produce the original diary. Even with regard to second charge, certain observations were made and the inquiry officer was asked to follow the procedure under Rules 9(13) and 9(14) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. 3.1 Mr. Gohil further submitted that what was therefore envisaged on the remission to the inquiry officer was to hold an inquiry afresh. That the inquiry was held and once again by a report of 31.12.1998, the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner holding that the evidence inasmuch as that of the handwriting expert and that of one Mr. Nagori was not in the list of documents or charge-sheet as originally framed and therefore there was violation of Rule 9(4). 3.2 Mr. Gohil would take the court through the defence statement of the petitioner initially filed on 27.04.1993 and submit that after the order of the learned Single Judge when the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, from the order of the appeal, he would submit that several contentions were raised as recorded in the order inasmuch as (a) the alleged diary was not that of the petitioner ; (b) during the course of hearing of the case and examination-in-chief of the witnesses of the government, the Presenting Officer had neither raised the question of diary or any witnesses ; (c) the petitioner’s handwriting was never taken and; (d) Rule 9(14) was violated. 3.3 It was therefore submitted by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the petitioner that it was on certain observations of the Division Bench that the matter was sent back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order. Further if the chronology of events that unfolded preceding the order of the Division Bench and when compared to the fresh order passed in purported compliance of the order of the Division Bench, the disciplinary authority has reiterated the order of dismissal dated 11.09.2002 as is evident from the impugned order dated 11.10.2005. 3.4 Mr. Gohil further submitted that the order of removal is beyond the charge-sheet as the contents of the show-cause notice on which the charge no. 1 is sought to be disagreed was never framed as a charge. Mr. 3.4 Mr. Gohil further submitted that the order of removal is beyond the charge-sheet as the contents of the show-cause notice on which the charge no. 1 is sought to be disagreed was never framed as a charge. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate would submit that Rule 9(14) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules envisaged only inquiry on the same set of evidence and could not be used to cure inherent lacuna or defects in evidence which was originally produced from the charge-sheet and the evidence produced before the inquiry officer originally on 14.11.1995 and 31.12.1998 and when on both the occasions the investigating officer exonerated the petitioner it is the fact that the original diary was not produced and therefore it was a case of no evidence. Apparently, the impugned order would indicate that the handwriting expert’s opinion has been obtained in comparison with certain writings of the petitioner of which he was never confronted with. So also Mr. Nagori was never a cited witness in the charge-sheet. The order being in gross violation of the directions of Division Bench and Rule 9(14) of the Rules be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP contended that the orders of penalty of removal from service was completely justified. He would submit that the controversy now was restricted to appreciation of charge no. 1 being proved as the disciplinary authority had agreed with the charge no. 2 not being proved. Reading charge no. 1 he would submit that it was in context wherein the personal diary of the petitioner enlisted incidences when he had met various women on various dates and admitted to having a relationship or involvement. That was a conduct unbecoming of a government servant involving moral turpitude and the only punishment that such an official holding the post of a Deputy District Development Officer could be inflicted with was that of removal from service. 4.1 Mr. Thakkar would submit that it had come on record before the inquiry officer that the lady witnesses though 12 in number listed in the charge-sheet, only 4 came forward to depose. Some of them subsequently retracted their statements. The petitioner denied existence of the diary though a photo copy of the diary was produced. 4.1 Mr. Thakkar would submit that it had come on record before the inquiry officer that the lady witnesses though 12 in number listed in the charge-sheet, only 4 came forward to depose. Some of them subsequently retracted their statements. The petitioner denied existence of the diary though a photo copy of the diary was produced. The only way then left for the authority was to compare the handwriting of the petitioner with available material with the department to confirm that the writing was that of the petitioner. Mr. Nagori was also brought in who before the inquiry officer deposed that it is true that the petitioner was targeting the witnesses. This evidence was in prefect compliance of Rule 9(14) of the Rules inasmuch as it was open for the inquiry officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the government servants. It was also open for the inquiry officer to call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness. It was not a case where an inherent lacuna or a defect was being cured. Mr. Thakkar, learned AGP would rely on the affidavit-in-reply filed to the petition. 5. No other submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, certain undisputed facts need to be recorded: (i) Of the two charges levelled against the petitioner which are reproduced hereinabove, the scope of examination vis-a-vis the order of removal dated 11.10.2005 and the order of review dated 22.05.2008 has therefore to be restricted only in context of charge no. 1. (ii) Reading charge no. 1 what is evident is that the petitioner was alleged to have committed serious misconduct amounting to moral turpitude and unbecoming of a government servant inasmuch as while working as a Deputy District Development Officer, Amreli, he had maintained a personal diary wherein his conduct reflected immoral behaviour with the trainee nurses of the Female Health Workers Training School, Amreli. The diary names female nurses with whom he had relationship or otherwise. The diary names female nurses with whom he had relationship or otherwise. (iii) Based on the evidence on record, inasmuch as the charge-sheet listed 12 witnesses for the purposes of proving the charge, apparently the order dated 01.10.1996 would indicate that the inquiry officer in his first report of 14.11.1995 had found that only 4 witnesses had come forward and all the four witnesses then turned hostile. Hence no witnesses came forth to support the charge. Further the original diary was not produced and only photo-copied pages were produced. By an order dated 01.10.1996 the state remitted the matter for inquiry afresh on the count that no witnesses had come forth and the original diary was not produced. (iv) Based on this order of the state government the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry afresh and found that the presenting officer in his submission has stated that there were 12 witnesses of which in the first round only 4 had remained present and only 1 Shri J.K. Kharadi had stood by his deposition framing the petitioner. It was in this background that one Mr. Nagori was examined who in his deposition of 29.09.1997 confirmed that the petitioner had threatened the witnesses and had stated that the behaviour of the petitioner was immoral. The inquiry officer in the second report of 31.12.1998 had opined that the handwriting expert’s opinion was not part of the evidence listed in the charge-sheet nor was Shri Nagori listed as witness. There was therefore violation of Rules 9(13) and 9(14) of the Rules. The investigating officer opined that such evidence could not be produced to fill up any gap in the evidence. Hence he exonerated the petitioner. 7. Before I examine the contents of the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2001 issued subsequent to the inquiry officer’s report disagreeing with the report of 31.12.1998, it will be in the fitness of things to examine these after the observations and the contents of the Division Bench order are seen. Throughout the proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry, it was the specific case of the petitioner that the diary was not his. The government had not produced any support, evidence, panchnama or rojkam recording the seizure in respect of the diary. Throughout the proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry, it was the specific case of the petitioner that the diary was not his. The government had not produced any support, evidence, panchnama or rojkam recording the seizure in respect of the diary. It was the case of the petitioner that even in the departmental proceedings, the Presenting Officer had neither raised the question with regard to the diary nor any witnesses had given direct or indirect support to the diary or writings. The petitioner had further argued that his handwriting was never taken at any stage and a report of the handwriting expert was obtained ex-parte. There was therefore violation of Rule 9(14) of the Rules. It was his case that since the inquiry was held as an inquiry afresh, no new evidence can be added as was done by introducing the handwriting expert and Mr. Nagori. 7.1 It was in this context that the Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the State government to consider and pass a fresh order. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the contentions of the petitioner at the relevant point of time which are germane to examine the legality of the present order. The contentions read as under: “….(A) Alleged diary is not mine. During the preliminary inquiry or hearing, the Govt. has not produced any support, evidence, panchnama or rojkam regarding the seizure in respect of the same is mine. The preliminary and final inquiry has been conducted only by making presumption which is against the rules of Departmental Inquiry and principle of natural justice. (B) During the course of hearing of case and examination-in-chief of witnesses for the Govt., the presenting officer has neither raised any question regarding diary nor any witness has given either direct or indirect support to alleged diary or writing thereof in his statement. (C) My hand writings are never taken at any stage, for Question -2 to obtain the report of the Hand writing expert for the alleged diary. (C) My hand writings are never taken at any stage, for Question -2 to obtain the report of the Hand writing expert for the alleged diary. Moreover, this report has been obtained exparte and in unjust way by violating openly the rules of the departmental inquiry, keeping my representations aside and violating the rule 9 (14) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline ad Appeals) Rules,1971 and that is for only this reason that according to conclusions of the Inquiry officer, as the charge is not supported by the witnesses produced by the Govt., lastly the attempt is made to prove that charge treating that said diary and writing are of Shri Basthia. (D) With a view to obtain the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert, the rule 9(14) is violated as under : As this departmental inquiry being conducted against me is not "Inquiry" but "Inquiry afresh", no new evidence can be produced at this stage. Because the proceeding to be carried out in preliminary inquiry, have not been carried out at the time of preliminary inquiry too. As the plan for the proof based on witnesses failed, the rule 9(14) is violated in this way and after the closing hearing on 04-10-97 (as per Rojkam dated 29-09-97) by the Inquiry Officer, the exparte and arbitrary submission made in personal capacity by the other side (i.e. Govt.) is accepted as evidence on record without my knowledge and consent. Rule 9(14) verbatim is as under: "New evidence shall not be permitted or called for and no witness shall be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence amy be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally." Thus, at the stage of "Inquiry afresh" of departmental inquiry, the evidence forged and added later on has been produced as a new evidence with a view to adjust the missing link (connecting clue) in filling up the report of handwriting expert. Because this new evidence has been entered at the final stage of inquiry. Moreover, this new evidence can be demanded only for the reason of having essential defect in original evidence produced (of personal diary). In the said case, no such fact has taken place. Because this new evidence has been entered at the final stage of inquiry. Moreover, this new evidence can be demanded only for the reason of having essential defect in original evidence produced (of personal diary). In the said case, no such fact has taken place. However, the co-evidence (report of hand writing expert) is produced against rules to the support original evidence produced first by connecting missing link in the evidence. It is also against the principle of natural justice. (E) The witnesses have been examined during "Inquiry afresh". In this inquiry inspite of my objection Mr.Nagori, whose name is not even entered in the witness list, has been produced as a witness, which is against the rules. In this regard the inquiry officer also has clarified that, as per the principle of natural justice, the reliance can not be placed only on the statement or deposition of Mr.Nagori. Because out of 13 witnesses only Mr.Nagori has supported the charge. Thus, as the charge based on the witnesses is not proved by the depositions of the witnesses, both the facts have been produced by violating the rules arbitrarily. (1) The opinion of hand writing expert against the alleged diary and (2) Mr.Nagori is produced as the witness despite he is not in the witness list. Thus, as both these facts, which are not mentioned in chargesheet, did not get support and as the charge is not being proved, after knowing this fact by the Presenting Officer & the Govt., later on the procedure has been followed against the rules in exparte, arbitrary and unjust way, being equivalent to breach of principle of natural justice, with a view to prove the said charge by hook or crook.” 7.2 The Division Bench in this context held as under: “… During the course of hearing, we enquired from the learned Assistant Government Pleader whether any material is available on the record to show that the appellant had pressurised the departmental witnesses or influenced them in any other manner. In reply, Shri Kogje fairly stated that no such evidence is available on the record. He also stated that the records of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant do not show that the order removing the appellant was passed because the State Government had lost confidence in him. In reply, Shri Kogje fairly stated that no such evidence is available on the record. He also stated that the records of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant do not show that the order removing the appellant was passed because the State Government had lost confidence in him. It is thus clear that the two factors which heavily weighed with the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition were totally extraneous to the pleadings of the parties and the record maintained by the Government. In view of the above conclusion, we may have set aside the order under challenge and remitted the case for fresh adjudication of the writ petition, but after carefully scrutinising the order of punishment we are convinced that the same is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the Scheme of the Rule and the principles of natural justice and, therefore, we do not consider it proper to remand the case to the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the documents annexed with the writ application shows that in response to show cause notice dated 16.3.2001, the appellant had submitted detailed reply. He not only questioned the legality of the show cause notice and the reasons for disagreement recorded by the State Government but also raised several points in support of his plea that the entries recorded in the personal diary can not be made basis for punishing him. However, without considering any of the points raised in the reply, the State Government passed a cryptic order of punishment. Though the order dated 11.9.2002 runs into 5 typed sheets, a careful reading thereof leads to an irresistible conclusion that it does not satisfy the test of a speaking order. After making reference to 2 charges levelled against the appellant, first inquiry report dated 14.11.95 vide which the inquiry was remitted to the inquiry officer, order dated 1.10.96, second inquiry report, show cause notice dated 16.3.2001 and the reply of the appellant, the State Government recorded a one line conclusion that the explanation given by the appellant is not acceptable and in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the Government has decided to remove him from service. In our opinion, total non consideration of the points taken by the appellant in reply to show cause notice not only reflects lack of objectivity on the part of the State Government but also demonstrates lack of appreciation of the settled legal position that every quasi judicial authority is duty bound to record reasons in support of its conclusions and communicate the same to the affected person.” 7.3 The examination of the order impugned in this petition would indicate that the state government has completely overlooked the intention of the Division Bench qua the sole object of reiterating its stand on the charges of moral turpitude being proved. While examining this order what is evident is that from the order of 01.10.1996 of the stage government the remission was necessary inasmuch as of the 12 witnesses that were stated in the charge-sheet only 4 had come forward who had then subsequently retracted their statements. Moreover, the original diary was never produced nor a panchnama made and that was a specific observation of the disciplinary authority that the presenting officer had failed in his duty to secure the original diary. 7.4 To overcome this hurdle of the charge being repeatedly unproved, as is evident from the contents of the impugned order, the disciplinary authority compared the hand writing of the petitioner in the photocopies of the diary with that of some letters that he had written during his tenure of service as well as the paper of the GPSC and came to the conclusion that the hand writing of those papers matched with that of the diary and therefore held the charge to be proved. Added support was taken from the deposition of Shri Nagori. Extensively reading the Inquiry Officer’s Report dated 31.12.1998 would indicate that the Inquiry Officer had specifically opined that this method of the department to have the charge proved was in violation of Rule 9(14) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Despite this, the State Government blatantly disagreed with this and issued a disagreement notice dated 16.03.2001. 7.5 If the disagreement notice of 16.03.2001 is now examined, the reason for disagreement in its true translated version reads as under: “i) According to the findings of the investigating officer, the concerned young women have not confirmed the misconduct as per the text in the personal diary of Mr.Basathiya. 7.5 If the disagreement notice of 16.03.2001 is now examined, the reason for disagreement in its true translated version reads as under: “i) According to the findings of the investigating officer, the concerned young women have not confirmed the misconduct as per the text in the personal diary of Mr.Basathiya. So that what is written in the diary does not prove that Mr.Basathiya that Mr.Basathiya behaved, but the text of Mr.Basathiya’s personal diary is his text. Taking into account the opinion given by the signature expert, it has been proved that ithe instinct or the activity of writing such dirty text by the responsbile officer Class-I is not considered appropriate. Such behaviour by him is not expected from an officer of his rank. The only thing in his diary is the text in his signature. Thus, the charge no.1 is considered to be proven.” 7.6 What is evident on reading the charge and the disagreement notice is that the same is beyond the charge-sheet and therefore cannot be considered for imposing penalty. Reading of the order of 11.10.2005 would indicate that the disciplinary authority has in its operative portion categorically stated that they stand by the order of 11.10.2005 which once again reflects the decision making process being without application of mind in context of the order of the Division Bench. 8. Now coming to the question whether there was violation of Rule 9(14), it shall be relevant to peruse Rule 9(14) of Discipline and Appeal Rules which reads as under: “(14) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiry Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence of recall and reexamine any witness and in such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The Inquiry Authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The Inquiry Authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The Inquiry Authority may also allow the Government servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Note : New evidence shall not be permitted or called for and no witness shall be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally.” 8.1 Reading the rule it becomes evident that it is open for the inquiry authority in its discretion to allow the presenting officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the government servant or the inquiry authority may itself call for the new evidence of recall and reexamine any witness. Note of the rule would indicate that such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacunae or a defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. 8.2 Admittedly, in the inquiry officer’s report of 14.11.1995 and 31.12.1998, what has come on record is that on the basis of the evidence that was produced, the charge could not be proved. In the subsequent report, the inquiry officer categorically opined that the handwriting expert’s opinion and Shri Nagori’s testimony were not part of the original evidence. It is in this context that may be even if it is qualified as new evidence, it was not such evidence which was called to cure an inherent lacuna or defect in evidence which was originally produced. Once on the basis of the listed witnesses and evidence, the charge could not be supported, there was no inherent lacuna or defect of the evidence which was originally produced. Based on the originally produced evidence, the charge was not proved. Obviously, therefore, the resort to handwriting expert’s opinion and the contention that the writings of the petitioner behind his back and Mr. Nagori’s statement were an exercise to fill up the gap in the evidence could not have been done. Evidently, therefore the order of 11.10.2005 should fail on that ground alone. The charge no. Obviously, therefore, the resort to handwriting expert’s opinion and the contention that the writings of the petitioner behind his back and Mr. Nagori’s statement were an exercise to fill up the gap in the evidence could not have been done. Evidently, therefore the order of 11.10.2005 should fail on that ground alone. The charge no. 1 could not be held to be proved and the order of removal from service and the consequential order of review deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 11.10.2005 and 22.05.2008 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be treated to be in service as if the order of removal dated 11.10.2005 had not been passed and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits that may be available to the petitioner as if these orders were never passed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.