Vidyapati Bhagwatpati Tiwari v. Union of India

1947. The terms of reference given in the Schedule are as follows:- “Whether the action of the management of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India in dismissing Shri V. B. Tiwari, Senior Auto Mechanic (SG) from services with immediate effect vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2003 is justified, proper and in proportionate to the alleged charges of misconduct? If not, to what relief the workman Shri. Tiwari is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

5. Mr. Pandey learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the alleged charges against the Petitioner are that he encroached upon Respondent No.2’s land in Kondivita village, Survey No.104, Near Marol Pipeline and was conducting the business of a motor car garage on the said land in the name of his wife Smt. Sushila Vidyapati Tiwari. He would submit that this charge is denied by the Petitioner. He would submit that these charges are levelled for the first time by issuing a charge-sheet on 11.10.1996 which was adequately replied to by the Petitioner. He would submit that at that time enquiry was taken to its logical end and by order dated 01.02.2000 penalty of dismal from service was imposed upon him. He 6 of 28 would however submit that in the Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the above order of dismissal, the dismissal order was set aside but the Appellate Authority directed to place the Petitioner under suspension until a fresh enquiry was conducted by way of sheer victimization. According to him it was irregular and illegal on the part of Respondent No.2 to initiate a fresh / second enquiry on the same and similar charges as that of the first enquiry which was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the Respondent No.2 thus violated the principles of natural justice.

5.1. On the issue of merit of the charge he would submit that findings of the Enquiry Officer that Survey No.104 in village Kondivita belonged to the Respondent No.2 was based upon a document being Exhibit-2C which was the Kami Jasti Patrak pertaining to the said land which was in fact a forged document. He would submit that by annexing a forged document that is the Kami Jasti Patrak (Hakka Patra) to the charge-sheet pertaining to the subject land it was dishonestly alleged by Respondent No. 2 that the garage of Petitioner was located on Survey No.104 of Kondivita village which belonged to the Respondent No.2. He would submit that the Kami Jasti Patrak in fact pertained to a different land namely Survey No.35 and not Survey No.104 as claimed by Respondent No.2. He would submit that in this regard, Petitioner filed a complaint with the police authorities 7 of 28 against Respondent No.2 and its Officials on 28.02.2006 for committing a serious cognizable offence of forgery of the government document and also endorsed the said complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). In this regard he has drawn my attention to Exhibit-E which is a reply given by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai to the Commissioner of Police at page No.80 of the Writ Petition and would submit that during enquiry it was found that the contents of the Kami Jasti Patrak contained handwritten portions pertaining to Survey No.104 and it was not issued by the City Survey Officer. However, perusal of the said letter reveals that on the complaint of Petitioner appropriate enquiry was conducted by CBI and no criminal act was found attributable to any public servant i.e. Officials of Respondent No. 2 and therefore the Petitioner was accordingly issued a reply thereto.

5.2. Thereafter Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.22 of 2007 in this Court against the inaction of the police authorities for not registering any offence against the Respondent No.2 and its Officers. By order dated 12.01.2007 at Exhibit-F, page No.81, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that no cognizable offence was disclosed in the complaint as opined by the Assistant Director of Prosecution and Chief Police Prosecutor in his opinion and therefore the Petition was not entertained and Petitioner was directed to file a 8 of 28 private complaint.

5.3. He has next drawn my attention to a further Criminal Writ Petition No.1898 of 2012 and order dated 27.07.2015 passed therein which impugned the order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the revision application of the Petitioner against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the Officials of Respondent No.2 on the ground that they were public servants and no prosecution could be launched against them in view of the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. He would submit that by this order it was directed that the compliant should be proceeded further against the said officials in accordance with law.

5.4. He would thus submit that the very basis for the alleged charges for issuance of charge sheet was based on a wrong premise. He would submit that in the present case the issue of ownership of land was a crucial aspect and though the Kami Jasti Patrak pertained to Survey No.35, the alleged garage of Petitioner was situated on Survey No.104. He would submit that the Respondent No.2 failed to produce the 7/12 extract standing in its name in respect of Survey No.104 on which the Petitioner’s wife’s garage was situated. He would submit that though Petitioner’s wife was running the garage on Survey No.104 of village Kondivita, the said land belonged to the Central Government and not the Respondent No. 2 and it was within 9 of 28 realm of the Central Government to take any precipitative action against the Petitioner or the said garage and not for the Respondent No.2. He would in fact submit that neither Survey No.35 or Survey No.104 of village Marol or village Kondivita belonged to Respondent No.2 – Airport Authority of India. Some other grounds are taken in the Petition, however I do not find them relevant for consideration from the perspective of the present case and the evidence led by the parties. On the basis of the above submissions, he would submit that the impugned Awards deserved to be set aside and urges the Court to do the same.

6. PER CONTRA, Mr. Talsania learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 has drawn my attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated 01.04.2021 filed by the Senior Manager (HR) of Airport Authority of India which is at page No.195 of the Writ Petition and would contend that in the domestic enquiry held against the Petitioner the Enquiry Officer gave a full and fair opportunity to the Petitioner to cross-examine the 7 witnesses of the Respondent No.2. He would submit that a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner after the order of the Appellate Authority on two additional charges namely refusing to surrender his PIC No.N16256M in the Department and therefore willfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors and breach of security and 10 of 28 committing fraud and dishonesty with the property of Respondent No.2 and causing damage to the property.

6.1. He would submit that during the course of enquiry proceedings before Enquiry Officer all original documents relied upon by Respondent No.2 were produced and shown to the Enquiry Officer and the Petitioner and were also verified by the Petitioner in the presence of the Enquiry Officer. He would submit that witness action of 7 witnesses on behalf of Respondent No. 2 was led before the Enquiry Officer who were extensively cross-examined by the Petitioner but in rebuttal when the Petitioner’s turn arrived and when the Enquiry Officer asked him to submit his list of documents and witnesses in support of his case he refused to submit any documents. He would submit that this was the first instance available to the Petitioner when he could have placed on record all such relevant details of his right, title and entitlement to claim title of the land on which the garage was situated as also copies of the assessment record of the municipal corporation to show existence of the structure on the said land. He would submit that this opportunity was not availed by the Petitioner because the Petitioner did not have any such documents evidencing his right, title and interest in the subject land. The above submissions are justified by Mr. Talsania by drawing my attention to the fact that Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued a Section 357 11 of 28 notice for demolition of the unauthorized structures to the Petitioner and his wife thereafter they filed a Suit in the City Civil Court and made a plea that she was of the owner of the structure (i.e. garage) and would seek regularization under the MRTP Act. The order passed by the City Civil Court is appended to the Petition. I have read the same. He would submit that after issuance of the fresh charge-sheet and enquiry conducted and his consequential dismissal from service rather than the Petitioner submitting his entitlement documents to the subject land filed five Civil Writ Petitions in this Court between 2003 and 2018, two Criminal Writ Petitions and several complaints against the Respondent No.2 but has not been able to procure any order in his favour. He would submit that all along Petitioner has raised only one grievance and that is the entire case is based upon a forged Kami Jasti Patrak. In that regard, he has drawn my attention to the enquiry report which clearly records that after the originals were verified by the Petitioner’s representative Mr. O B Almedia, Assistant Accounts Manager copies of the Kami Jasti Patrak and Hakka Patra were given to him on 01.12.2001. He would then submit that on the xerox copies of the Kami Jasti Patrak and Hakka Patra which were handed over to Petitioner in the presence of Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner himself made handwritten remarks and thereafter claimed that the said handwritten remarks were in fact made by the City Survey Officer and filed a false complaint with the police authorities and the CBI in 12 of 28 the year 2005 only to bring pressure on the Respondent No.2 and its officials to withdraw the case. He would submit that the Petitioner has admitted the position that the land on which the garage belonging to his wife is situated belongs to the aerodrome as stated in the Kami Jasti Patrak and does not belong to the Petitioner.

6.2. He would submit that pursuant to a detailed enquiry it was found that the Petitioner has not only encroached upon land belonging to the aerodrome i.e Respondent No.2 but was also running a garage in the name of his wife. He would submit that Petitioner’s wife is not a qualified mechanic and is a mere housewife and it is the Petitioner who actually conducted the operations of the said garage. He has next drawn my attention to an order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.49 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the Criminal Revision Application on 19.01.2012. In that order a detailed reasoning is given that there was no document with the Petitioner to show or disqualify the claim of the Government of India nor the Petitioner has stated and proved that the subject land was allotted to him for running the garage during his service period. He would vehemently submit that the only basis for the Petitioner’s case being forgery and tampering of the Kami Jasti Patrak could be answered as the said document being a public document cannot be tampered with by any person as it is issued by the public authorities. 13 of 28 He would submit that the learned Presiding Officer of the CGIT while determining the enquiry proceedings in Part-I Award dated 17.10.2018 has rightly considered and returned a finding that inspection of the original documents was admittedly given to the Petitioner during the course of enquiry and in the absence of evidence in rebuttal by Petitioner the said document cannot be considered to be a forged document.

6.3. He would submit that another crucial piece of evidence considered by the Presiding Officer according to the Respondent is the certified copy of the Property Card contained in the list of its documents dated 29.03.2018 which clearly showed that the subject land where the garage stands belonged to the Respondent No.2 – Airport Authority of India as per pherphar (QsjQkj uacj) No.120 dated 24.11.2006. Therefore he would submit that with such overwhelming evidence of title proven by the Respondent No.2 by leading evidence and virtually no evidence produced by the Petitioner in rebuttal despite being given substantial opportunity, the Part-I Award has been correctly passed.

6.4. Next he would submit that being aggrieved with the Part-I Award Petitioner filed several Writ Petitions but this Court did not entertain them. The learned CGIT while determining the quantum of punishment i.e. Part-II Award i.e. Final Award has once again 14 of 28 undertaken a proper exercise to determine the lis and has considered every aspect of the reference made to the Tribunal for consideration and returned cogent findings after framing appropriate issues which cannot be found fault with. He would submit that if the Petitioner had any right, title and interest in the subject land on which the garage was standing, all that he was supposed to do was to file a title suit to protect his land and structure. The Petitioner did not do so, admittedly because the act of the Petitioner was an act of encroachment on land belonging to the Respondent No.2, because Petitioner indulged in outside business activities while in the services of Respondent No.2 and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Respondent No.2 which was unbecoming of an employee of the Respondent No.2. He would thus submit that the present WP deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7. Mr. Helekar, learned Advocate has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Talsania.

8. I have heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Helekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Talsania, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 and with their able assistance perused the pleadings and record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties have received due consideration of the Court. 15 of 28

9. At the outset, it is seen that in the enquiry proceedings held before the Enquiry Officer though Petitioner was represented by a defence assistant he did not choose to examine either himself or any witness on his behalf nor produce any documentary evidence of entitlement before the Enquiry Officer. All that Petitioner has contemplated right since inception is that he denied being an encroacher on any land and / or running the garage. I find this assertive statement made by him in his cross- examination before the learned CGIT on 19.11.2018 in paragraph no.39. Though it is Petitioner’s case that the structure on the land was regularized in the name of Sushila Complex Compound Residential Welfare Society and Sushila was his wife, he has admitted that he has not committed a grave and serious misconduct of encroachment of Respondent No.2’s land in paragraph no.40 of his cross examination recorded on 29.11.2018 before the CGIT. In this statement, I find that the encroachment is in name of his wife namely by the name Sushila Complex Compound Residential Welfare Society. This is so because it was Petitioner’s specific case that Survey No.35 of village Marol and Survey No.104 of Village Kondivita belonged to one Chandrasen Pandurang Muranjan and the Central Government respectively. If that be the case, it was always open to him at all times to institute a title suit rather then file 7 Civil Writ Petitions in this Court on the same issue of justifying fabrication of the Kami Jasti Patrak which was one 16 of 28 of the material piece of evidence placed by Respondent No.2 in the enquiry proceedings.

10. In the above background let us analyze the charge-sheet before I advert to the core issue. It is seen that the fresh charge-sheet dated 07.08.2001 was issued to the Petitioner on 8 charges which are reproduced below:- “i.) Encroachment of AAI land and running a motor garage on the said encroached land of AAI in the name of wife. ii.) Committing fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of AAI. iii.) Indulging in outside business activities while in services of AAI. iv.) Hiding information regarding profession of wife & claiming undue monetary benefit from AAI. v.) Refusing to surrender PIC No. N16256 M in the department, thereby disobeying the lawful & reasonable orders of superiors and breach of security. vi.) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Authority. vii.)Acting in a manner of unbecoming an employee of AAI and committing an act subversive of discipline or of good behavior. viii.)Failure to maintain absolute integrity and abetting in an act amounting to misconduct.”

11. Record is clearly borne out to the effect that Petitioner participated fully in the enquiry proceedings alongwith his defence assistant and duly cross examined all witnesses produced by Respondent No.2’s Management. Thereafter it is seen that Petitioner presented a list of documents on 22.02.2006 but did not produce and 17 of 28 examine any witnesses at all. It is further seen that each of the witnesses of Respondent No.2 were cross-examined by the Petitioner in the enquiry proceedings in detail and extensively. Record reveals that in November 1995, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) Vigilance who was one of the management witnesses before the Enquiry Officer was summoned by the Airport Director Shri R. J. Treasurywala to verify whether the Petitioner was having any garage in the vicinity of Sahar Airport since according to his information and knowledge the Petitioner was doing a private job in that garage and not working in the office of the Airport Authority of India. Thereafter the area near Marol pipeline was searched alongwith the security guards and the garage was traced. It was found that the said garage belonged to Petitioner’s wife and when the wife of Petitioner was contacted she confirmed that the garage was in her name. On making further enquiry from the neighbours it was found that the Petitioner was running the garage and more importantly it was situated on the land belonging to Respondent No. 2. It is further seen that thereafter DGM (Commercial) of Respondent No.2 confirmed that the said land belonged to the Respondent No.2 only after Mr. A. K. Gupta, Senior Land Manager and Shri Hiramath, Surveyor visited the site and confirmed that the said garage was in fact situated on land belonging to the Respondent No.2. Accordingly departmental action was initiated against the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. In the 18 of 28 disciplinary enquiry the witness Shri S. P. Paladia, Ex-OSD (Vigilance) has deposed and recorded this statement. He has been extensively examined thereafter for further examination-in-chief by the departmental Advocate and his deposition is revealing and proves that the said garage belonged to the Petitioner, that his car was parked near the said garage, that his wife herself confirmed that the said garage was in his name and the Petitioner was running the same.

12. In the above background, the learned CGIT while passing Part-I Award considered the evidence of the Management both oral and documentary and the documentary evidence given by the Petitioner and answered the following two issues against the Petitioner:-

13. The learned CGIT answered both issues in the negative by returning reasoned and cogent findings in paragraph nos.24 to 40 of its decision. It is seen that after closure of evidence by both parties and specific denial of Petitioner to lead evidence both parties submitted their briefs, presumably written submissions. On the issue of fresh enquiry being challenged by the Petitioner it was held that as 19 of 28 per the order of the Appellate Authority, fresh enquiry was held on two further additional charges which are referred to and alluded to herein above. The challenge of the Petitioner that fresh enquiry was not necessitated and cannot be accepted since the Appellate Authority clearly remanded and remitted the matter back in order to have a fair and proper enquiry.

14. Next we come to the contentious issue namely contention of the Petitioner that enquiry was not fair and proper due to non production of original documents relied upon by the Respondent No.2 and that the said documents were not duly proved. In this regard as submitted by Mr. Talsania and noted herein above, it is clearly seen that the Petitioner was given inspection of the original documents referred to and relied upon by the Respondent No.2 in the presence of the Enquiry Officer himself. The Report records the inspection given and thereafter copies given to the Petitioner. It is clearly seen that the objection of the Petitioner was to the Kami Jasti Patrak which clearly showed that the subject land was earmarked for aerodrome (,sjksMªkse dMs). Petitioner has contested this document as if this document is of title. He has not challenged the fact that the Kami Jast Patrak is a public document. All that he has repeatedly stated is that the Kami Jasti Patrak is forged. In that regard, it was always open to the Petitioner to substantiate his allegations by obtaining a certified copy 20 of 28 of the public document and place it on record. However while returning a reasoned finding on this aspect the learned CGIT has held that the Kami Jasti Patrak is not the only basis on which the case of the Respondent No.2 was argued. In paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the Part-I Award the learned CGIT categorically on the basis of the evidence concluded that on the basis of the documents produced by the Petitioner taken together, the land in question belonged to the Government and the said land was acquired by the Central Government prior to the formation of the International Airports Authority Act, 1971 and it was thereafter transferred to IAAI through International Airports Authority Act 43 of 1971 and thereafter transferred to AAI through Airports Authority Act 55 of 1994. The learned Tribunal considered the documents produced by the Petitioner himself which was a certified copy of the Property Card in his list dated 29.03.2018 before the CGIT and held that the said document itself clearly showed that the subject property in question belonged to the Airport Authority of India. In that view of the matter, the learned CGIT held that the enquiry cannot be said to be unfair on the basis of the documentary evidence considered by the Enquiry Officer. In paragraph no.26 it is clearly held that the document exhibited as Exhibit 2C is the Kami Jasti Patrak, original of which was shown to the Petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and he has taken inspection of the same after it was tendered in evidence by Mr. Arun Sharma one of the 21 of 28 witnesses during the course of enquiry. After taking inspection of the original document i.e Kami Jast Patrak and not raising any objection thereon, it cannot now subsequently lie in the mouth of the Petitioner that it was a forged document. On the aspect of not leading evidence the learned CGIT held that the Petitioner chose not to step into the witness box but filed written brief and submissions explaining the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. Thus it was held that due consideration was given to the Petitioner’s case in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and therefore it was held to be fair and proper. It is further seen that in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32 substantive evidence of Respondent No. 2 was considered by the Enquiry Officer to prove that the subject land below Survey No.104 and CTS No.272 of village Kondivita belonged to the aerodrome as per Exhibit PD-4 which was a notification, Hakka Patra PD29(B) and PR Card PD-3. The Enquiry Officer after going through the evidence of Kartar Singh and C. K. Nair clearly came to the conclusion that S. T. Auto Engg. Works i.e garage of the Petitioner was located within the boundary land belonging to the Respondent no.2 i.e. Airport Authority of India and the same was run by the Petitioner at Survey no.35 of Marol Technical area. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of site visits made by the Deponents / witnesses of Respondent no.2. Further Enquiry Officer has also considered the notification published in the Gazette dated 02.04.1953 read with the Government Notification 22 of 28 dated 28.08.1947 about the said land being acquired for the purpose of aerodrome. Thus on considering a detailed analysis of the documentary evidence presented by both parties and overall response of Respondent No.2 before the Enquiry Officer the reasoned findings are given in Part-I Award for upholding the said award. Therefore I have no hesitation in concluding that Part-I Award dated 17.01.2018 deserves to be upheld and it is thus confirmed.

15. In respect of Part-II Award to which a further challenge is maintained by the Petitioner, it is seen that the learned CGIT framed the following four issues which are reproduced below:-

23 of 28

16. The first two issues framed by the learned CGIT were answered in the affirmative and the later two issues in the negative. The learned CGIT after going through the record and evidence and held that in the charge-sheet though there was distinction and difference between specifically identifying the location of the garage, however there was overwhelming record and documentary evidence which established that the ownership of the land was always in favour of Respondent No.2. The learned CGIT held that the said situation did not preclude the Petitioner from producing the original and relevant documents but he did not do so and therefore the charge against him was proven and not disproved. There is a vital piece of material evidence referred to by the CGIT in its judgment namely proceedings in Suit No.5439 of 1987 filed in the Bombay City Civil Court. Reference is made to order dated 01.09.1998 of the City Civil Judge in that suit proceedings wherein it is recorded that wife of the Petitioner has stated on pleadings that the subject land belonged to the Airport Authority of India i.e Respondent No.2 and the same is quoted in the Court’s order. It is seen that under Exhibit M-29 enquiry was proposed against Petitioner under Regulation 28 of Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal), Regulations 1987. As regards the plea of victimization the learned CGIT has held that such an alleged act of victimization is required to be pleaded in detail and also proved cogently by factual evidence. Though it has been 24 of 28 argued by the Petitioner that the punishment meted out to him is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, however considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the Petitioner and the overwhelming documentary evidence including witness action being proved against the Petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the submissions of disproportionality. In fact in the facts and circumstances of the present case the punishment meted out to the Petitioner is adequate and cannot be faulted with in view of the proven misconduct of the Petitioner. This is a gross case of misconduct on the part of the Petitioner which involves falsehood and suppression.

17. It is thus seen that there is no irregularity, infirmity or any illegality in the Final Award on any count. The learned Industrial court has clearly dissected the order of reference and the points for determination which are discernible from the reasoned, cogent and precise findings returned by the Tribunal. It is once again repeated that nothing prevented the Petitioner from leading evidence, adducing evidence or stepping into the witness box.

18. The observations and findings which are referred and alluded to herein above clearly do not entitle the Petitioner to any relief whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of the present case. When an employee serves the Government Institution and in this case 25 of 28 the Airport Authority of India, he is governed by disciplinary rules. Such a blatant act of the Petitioner running a garage in the name of his wife on the land belonging to the employer i.e. Airport Authority of India and most importantly while in service and suppressing the said information is a blatant act of indiscipline and misconduct which deserves to be dealt with as strictly as possible. I have perused the order dated 04.09.2006 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No.976 of 2006 heard alongwith Notice of Motion No.3103 of 2006 in L.C. Suit no.3551 of 2006 taken out by the wife of the Petitioner. This suit was filed for challenging the notice issued under Section 351 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 by the Municipal Commissioner. The Plaintiff in the suit is the wife of the Petitioner who has replied to the notice issued by the Corporation contending that the original notice was wrongly issued in the name of D. V. Tiwari and in fact she is concerned with the suit structure which is known as Sushila Complex Compound Residential Welfare Society. In that order in paragraph no.10 there is a reference to the order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone-III which record as follows:- “At present, the measurements of the structure at site are 43ft X 41ft having height of the structure as 9.8ft at ground floor and 8.2ft on the first floor with sloping roof. Moreover, no permission for construction of mezzanine floor is taken till today. The plaintiff has converted the garage into shops and constructed first floor with ladi coba ladi by increasing the height. There are 5-6 shops at 26 of 28 ground floor and a primary school is run at first floor.”

19. From the above it is seen that the wife of the Petitioner has converted the garage into shops and therefore in the said order passed by the City Civil Court her plea that she will apply for regularization under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is noted. Thus it is seen that in 2006 the wife of the Petitioner has clearly attempted to erase the evidence and the fact that the garage was in existence is therefore clearly proved.

20. I am therefore of the opinion that a strong message needs to be served on delinquent Government employees who indulge in such kind of blatant misconduct despite serving the Government as employees and drawing salary from the Government. The trajectory of the present proceedings enunciated from 1995 till today clearly show that the Petitioner has made all efforts by filing 5 Civil Writ Petitions, 2 Criminal Writ Petitions and once approaching the Supreme Court and several applications and complaints to the statutory authorities including the CBI to fraught, dilate and perpetuate the case. All that I can say from the twin Awards passed by the learned CGIT is that the terms of reference made by the Central Government to the learned CGIT have been answered infallibly by considering the evidence on record and rejection of the reference is therefore upheld and confirmed. 27 of 28

21. The impugned judgement dated 17.10.2018 passed in Reference No. CGIT-2/03 of 2018 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Mumbai, as Award Part-I and the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed in Reference No. CGIT- 2/03 of 2018 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 at Mumbai as Award Part – II are sustained and upheld.

22. In view of the above findings, before parting with the judgment I am also of the firm opinion that this is a fit case for levy of exemplary costs on the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order.

23. In the event if the said costs are not paid, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District is directed to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner and pay the same to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai.

24. With the above directions, Writ Petition is dismissed with costs as awarded. Interim Application is also dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 28 of 28 MOHAN AMBERKAR