NVK Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

13. Similarly, when Naresh Prasad approached the petitioner, the latter agreed for the same provided Naresh Prasad agrees to pay Rs. 5,000/- to Pradeep Tambe of PCDA (N).

14. The petitioner then took out the permanent GENFORM of Naresh Prasad from the office and prepared HRA claim documents and forged signatures of concerned officer thereon. She submits that on the basis of thorough and detailed enquiry/investigation, respondent no. 4 proposed the punishment of dismissal from Coast Guard service to the petitioner on punishment approval form, which was approved by respondent no.2/ competent authority and thereafter the penalty of dismissal from Coast Guard service was imposed on him.

15. Ms. Dwivedi has denied the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone the punishment. She denied that the petitioner had been recommended minor punishment. Insofar as the argument of Mr. Kakkar regarding non-issuance of show cause notice for initiation of disciplinary action is concerned, Ms. Dwivedi has argued that there is no provision for the same.

16. She refers to the copy of offence report dated 12.01.2019 which lists the charges and the plea. The same reads as under:

17. She states charges leveled against the petitioner have been admitted by him including the acts of forgery, manipulation, fabrication, etc., to secure unjust and illegal enrichment and cause loss to the respondent organisation. The penalty imposed on the petitioner is just and proportionate. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner had earlier been punished for being absent without leave under Section 26 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 („the Act‟ for short).

18. Ms. Dwivedi has also referred to the previous acts of the petitioner which attracted appropriate punishment at the said time. The argument that the petitioner was awarded a minor punishment which was then enhanced to dismissal from service, while alleging discrepancy in documents has been denied by Ms. Dwivedi. She also states that a perusal of all the relevant documents held at the headquarters are the same and the punishment proposed and forwarded for approval is dismissal from the Coast Guard service. She states that a perusal of the reply of DIG who was the then Commanding Officer of the petitioner, whose signatures are visible on the document produced by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit reveals that the Officer himself has stated that he had forwarded a Punishment Approval Form (PAF) with dismissal from the Coast Guard service and that the document which has been produced by the petitioner was a draft document which the Commanding Officer had ordered to be destroyed. She states that the production of the said document by the petitioner clearly indicates the mischievous intent of the petitioner to mislead this Court. She has alleged mala fide on the part of the petitioner since he was aware of the functioning of the service and has deliberately produced a document before this Court with full knowledge that the document is not a valid document. Such an action cannot be considered to be an innocent mistake.

19. She states that if the punishment awarded to the petitioner as he claims was promulgated then there would have been a punishment GENFORM wherein the details of his casualty would have been recorded and forwarded to the bureau of Naviks, BUVIK, which is the cadre Controlling Authority for the enrolled personnel in the Indian Coast Guard.

20. Further, if the punishment had been awarded to the petitioner, then the PAF which he claims to have been forwarded by the ship would have been replied to by the Competent Authority and there would have been a communication trail, which according to Ms. Dwivedi is absent in this case. She has argued that the petitioner has procured the draft PAF document before its destruction and kept it in his possession illegally and intends to now mislead this Court by producing the same on record with an affidavit. In this regard, she has referred to annexure R-19 which is a copy of the punishment GENFORM, which has endorsed the punishment to the petitioner as dismissal from the Coast Guard service. The GENFORM report reads as under:

21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the short issue which arises for consideration is whether as contended by Mr. Kakkar, the petitioner was awarded a lesser punishment, which was later changed to that of dismissal from service.

22. The submission of Mr. Kakkar is that the respondent No. 3, Commander has pronounced the minor punishment and hence, the punishment of dismissal is illegal.

23. Suffice to state, the case of the respondents and the Commandant is that on perusal of all the relevant documents held at the headquarters, the punishment proposed and forwarded for approval, is dismissal from Coast Guard Service.

24. Mr. Kakkar has relied upon the letter, which according to him the Commanding Officer had sent to the Approving Authority to state that the petitioner has been awarded a minor punishment:- “The Commander Coast Guard Region (West) Worli Sea Face, Worli Mumbai-400030 SUBMISSION OF PAF TO THE APPROVING AUTHORITY AJAY KUMAR NVK (WTR) 11957-Z Sir, I beg to inform for your approval the following to be awarded to the aforesaid accused: a) Detention in Coast Guard Custody for 30 days (b) Deprivation of First GCB

(c) Stoppage of Pay & Allowance for 30 days

(d) Stoppage of leave for 60 days

2. The accused Service Book, Offence Report and Record of Evidence are annexed herewith. -sd- (Manoj Bhatia) Deputy Inspector General Commanding Officer”

25. The stand of the Officer i.e., Commanding Officer in this regard can be seen from the documents at Annexure-5 of the Counter Affidavit to state that punishment awarded to the petitioner is dismissal from service and not the minor punishment as alleged by the petitioner:- “PUNISHMENT APPROVAL FORM ICGS Samrat Date: 13 Jan 2019 No 203 (i) For "Dismissal from Coast Guard Service" Whereas Name Ajay Kumar Rank Nvk(Wtr) No.11957-Z Good Conduct Medal: Nil Good Conduct Badges: One Date of Birth: 15 Jul 1992 Date of entry into CG Services: 30 Jul 2012 Date of Joining ICGS Samrat: 20 Mar 2018 Character assessed to date: VG Was charged for that he did (a) (First Charge) "At Mumbai, during Oct 2018, caused wrongful gain of 30 Jul 2016 to Vikash Kumar Singh, Nvk (QA), (13600-P) of same unit submitting to PGDA (N) under mentioned fabricated documents thereby committed an offence punishable under section 44 of Coast Guard Act

1978.

(i) ICGS Samrat letter No. 403 dated 30 Aug 18.

(ii) Counter signed HRA certificates dated 30 Aug 18.

(iii) NAC of accommodation dated 20 Mar 18.

(iv) Genform No. CG/392/N dated 02 Jul 18.

(b) (Second Charage) "At Mumbai, during Sep to Nov 18, received Rs.51,000/- (rupees Fifty One thousand) from Vikas Kumar Singh, Nvk (QA), 13600-p of same unit towards fabricating and submission of HRA claim as mentioned in first charge, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 44 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. (c) (Third Charge) "At Mumbai during Aug 2018, forged signatures of LOGO and Regulating Officer of CGDHQ-2 for making of documents in first charge, thereby committed offence punishable 33(e) of Coast Guard Act 1978. (d) (Fourth Charge) "At Mumbai during Oct 2018 caused wrongful gain of HRA wef 01 Mar 2017 to Naresh Prasad, Nvk (Wtr), (13797-T) of same unit by making and submitting to PCDA (N) fabricated documents pertaining to HRA, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 34(f) of Coast Guard Act 1978. (e) (Fifth Charge) "At Mumbai, during Oct 2018, agreed to receive Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) from Naresh Prasad, Nvk (Wtr), (13791-T) of same unit towards fabricating and submission of HRA claim as mentioned in fourth charge, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 44 of Coast Guard Act 1978. (f) (Sixth Charge) "At Mumbai during Oct 2018, forged signatures of LOGO and Regulating Officer of ICGS Samrat and Accommodation Officer of CGDHQ-2 for making of documents mentioned in fourth charge, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 33(e) of Coast Guard Act 1978. And whereas I did, on the 12 day of Jan 19 personally and publically, in the presence of the accused and the witness, Investigated the matter and the accused has pleaded guilty to the charges. Having heard the evidence of Sombir Dabas P/Adh(QA) 02842-P. Vikash Kumar Singh Nvk(QA) 13600- P and Naresh Prasad Nvk(Wtr) 13791-T in support of the charges, I consider the charges to be substantiated against him and adjudge him to be punished as follows:- "Dismissal from Coast Guard Service" Given under my hand onboard ICGS Samrat on the day of Jan 2019. -sd- (Manoj Bhatia) Deputy Inspector General Commanding Officer”

26. According to respondents, the document on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner has never been communicated to the petitioner and any punishment proposed on the petitioner was subject to the approval by the Competent Authority. It is also stated the document on which, much reliance has been placed by the petitioner, erroneously, the penalty of dismissal was not mentioned. The error was rectified by issuing a further communication dated 13.01.2019, which has been approved by the Competent Authority. Hence, the punishment of dismissal shall hold good for all purposes.

27. In this regard, we may reproduce the stand of the respondents in the short affidavit wherein the respondents have clarified their stand on the documents on which much reliance has been placed by the petitioner in the following manner:- “It is submitted that in pursuance to this Hon'ble High Court order dated 02 May 24, a letter was sent to the Regional Headquarters (West), under whose operational/ administrative command, the ex-ship of the petitioner i.e. ICGS Samrat is positioned. This Headquarters i.e. CGHQ vide letter LW/0501/594 dated 08 May 24 sought clarification from RHQ(W) and ICGS Samrat W.r.t the PAF produced in court by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. A copy of CGHQ letter LW/0501/594 dated 08 May 24 vide which the clarification was sought from the Regional Headquarters in Mumbai/ICGS Samrat is annexed as Annexure R-13.

13. RHQ(W) vide letter LW/1004/V/Vol-XIII dated 13 May 24 have intimated that they had sought clarification from ICGS Samrat and also DIG Manoj Bhatia, who was the then Commanding officer of the petitioner whose signature is visible on the document produced by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. RHQ(W) vide letter ibid have informed that ICGS Samrat have informed that as per the records held with the ship, PAF indicating sentence of "Dismissal from Coast Guard service" was submitted to RHQ(W) vide lCGS Samrat letter 203(i) dated 13 Jan 2019. Further, RHQ(w) have also intimated that they have also ascertained the records with regard to the petitioner and it has been established that PAF dated 13 Jan 19 recommending punishment of "Dismissal from Coast Guard service" was received from ICGS Samrat which is the same document that ICGS Samrat have also mentioned in their reply. It is also pertinent to note here that a reply was also sought from DIG Manoj Bhatia, who was the then Commanding officer of the petitioner whose signature is visible on the document produced by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. The officer has replied that PAF which was forwarded for approval was for "Dismissal from Coast Guard service". The officer has also stated that during the process of preparing the PAF he had noticed that the punishment of "Dismissal from Coast Guard service" was missing from the PAF, therefore, he directed the concerned staff to re-prepare the document with the correct punishment and to destroy the incorrect document. Thereafter, only the corrected PAF was forwarded for approval of the competent authority in which the punishment proposed was only "Dismissal from Coast Guard service". A copy of RHQ (W) letter LW11004IVI Vol-XIII dated 13 May 24 vide which the clarification is provided to the query sought by CGHQ, Delhi, is annexed as Annexure R-14. A copy of CGRHQ (W) fax LWI 1004/B/Vol-XIII dated 09 May 24 vide which clarification was sought by RHQ(W) from ICGS Samrat the ex-ship of the petitioner, is annexed as Annexure R-15. A copy of CGRHQ (W) fax LWI 1004/B/Vol-XIII dated 10 May 24 vide which clarification was sought from DIG Manoj Bhatia; the ex-Commanding Officer of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure R-16. A copy of ICGS Samrat fax 203 dated 10 May 24 alongwith enclosures vide which they have re[plied to RHQ(W) is annexed as Annexure R-17. A copy of CGDHQ-ll fax 212/01 dated 10 May 24 vide which DIG Manoj Bhatia has replied to RHQ(W) is annexed as Annexure R-18.

14. It is submitted that the documents, records held with the various Unis/Headquarters In the order of hierarchy i.e. to whom the PAF was forwarded, has been verified. The various Headquarters are as follows:- (a) ICGS Samrat, Mumbai - ex ship where petitioner was last posted. (b) Regional Headquarters (West), Mumbai the Regional Headquarters where ICGS Samrat had initially forwarded the PAF on 13 Jan 19.

(c) Headquarters Coast Guard Commander

(Western Seaboard), Mumbai - The Headquarters above RHQ(W) where the PAF was forwarded for scrutiny and further forwarding to CGHQ.

(d) Coast Guard Headquarters, Delhi - The

Service Headquarters where the case was finally scrutinized and approval was accorded by Director General Indian Coast Guard, DGICG for the punishment of "Dismissal from Coast Guard service". It is submitted that the documents held in all these Headquarters are the same and the punishment proposed and forwarded for approval on PAF is "Dismissal from Coast Guard service". A perusal of the reply of DIG Manoj Bhatia, who was the then Commanding officer of the petitioner whose signature is visible on the document produced by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit reveals that the officer himself has stated that he had forwarded a PAF with "Dismissal from Coast Guard service" and that the document which the petitioner has produced in the rejoinder affidavit was a draft document which the Commanding Officer had ordered to be destructed. However, the production of the same by the petitioner clearly indicates the mischievous intent of the petitioner and the fraudulent intent to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner being aware of the functioning of the service has deliberately produced this document before court with full knowledge that the document is not a valid document. Therefore the actions of the petitioner cannot be construed as an innocent mistake. It is common knowledge in service that if he had been awarded the punishments that he claims to have been awarded then the same would have been promulgated to him and there would have been a punishment GENFORM wherein the details of his casualty would have been recorded and forwarded to Bureau of Naviks, BUVIK which is the cadre controlling authority for Enrolled Personnel in Indian Coast Guard. Further, if the Punishment would have been awarded then the Punishment Approval Form which he claims to have been forwarded by the ship would have been replied to by the competent Authority and there would have been a communication trail, which is absent in this case, It is submitted that in all probability the petitioner would have laid his hands on the draft PAF document and before destruction would have kept it in his possession illegally and has now with the intent to mislead this Hon'ble Court has produced it as a record on an affidavit, A copy of the Punishment GENFORM wherein the casualty has been endorsed as "Dismissal from Coast Guard service" is annexed as Annexure R-19.”

28. The aforesaid brings clarity on the stand taken by the petitioner that the minor penalties have been imposed. No such punishments can be said to have been imposed without the approval of the competent authority and in this regard we refer to the judgment in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 677 as under:

29. Now, the question is whether the penalty of dismissal from service of Coast Guard imposed on the petitioner is justified.

30. We may also state the reliance placed by Mr. Kakkar on the document as referred in paragraph 26 above is concerned, the same shall come into effect only if the same is approved by the Competent Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner nor anything has been placed before us to say that the same has been approved by the Competent Authority. So it follows, the said document will not have the effect of having been approved and thereof imposed on the petitioner. In this regard, we refer to the judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676 wherein the Supreme Court while interpreting the judgment in B.V. Gopinath (supra) had held that where a document lacks assent of the competent authority, the same shall not come into effect, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

31. In light of the reasoning above, the argument of Ms. Dwivedi must be accepted that all the necessary steps, were taken, as can be seen from the affidavit such as the letter dated 08.03.2019, forwarding the PAF to the Appropriate Authority which letter was then acted upon by the Deputy Inspector General, Chief Staff Officer (P&A) for the Coast Guard vide letter dated 14.03.2019 at Annexure R-11. Along with the decision of the Approving Authority being the Director General of the Coast Guard dated 17.05.2019 which was read to the petitioner on 08.10.2019; moreover, the explanation regarding the mismatch of the GENFORM, from the concerned officer, who stated vide fax dated 10.05.2024 that while checking the documents it was noticed that the punishment of dismissal was erroneously missed, the documents were re-prepared with the punishment of dismissal incorporated and thereafter dispatched.

32. We also find merit in the submission of Ms. Dwivedi that, no punishment was announced until the approval of the Appropriate Authority was taken. The earlier set of documents were never sent to the higher authority for approval.

33. In any case, the charges to which the petitioner has pleaded guilty are of very serious nature inasmuch as the petitioner has facilitated the grant of HRA to ineligible enrolled persons by fabricating documents and in exchange of illegal gratification. To hold, against those charges, the petitioner must have been given a lesser punishment than dismissal is impermissible. Hence the judgment relied upon by Mr. Kakkar in the case of Ranjit Thakur (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case as the punishment imposed on the petitioner herein is not disproportionate and no judicial interference is required.

34. We do not find any merit in the petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JANUARY 14, 2026 sr