1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1209/2009 Sudhakar R.Mohite Aged about 51 years, 5/91,Tata Colony,Navghar Road, Mulund East, Mumbai- 400 081. ..Petitioner. Vs. 1] Tata Memorial Centre, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.Ernest Borges Marg, Parel Mumbai -400 012. 2] The Chief Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre, Dr.Ernest Borges Marg, Parel Mumbai 400 012. 3] Advanced Centre for Treatment Research & Education Centre, Through its Senior Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210. 4] Senior Administrative Officer, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education Centre, Tata Memorial Centre,Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210. 5] The Director, Advanced Centre for Treatment Research & Education Centre, Tata Memorial Centre, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210. 2 6] Union of India , through its Secretary, Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy CSM Marg,Mumbai 400 001 ..RESPONDENTS. Mr.D.S.Sapkale, Adv.for petitioner Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Mahek Kalyaniwalla Mr.Agnel Casueiro for Respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 8/12/2009 PRONOUNCED ON:5/1/2010 J U D G M E N T (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR ,J.) . The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/4/2007 passed by respondent no.4, Sr.Administrative Officer of Tata Memorial Centre/ respondent no.1 compulsorily retiring him from the service. 2] Respondent no.1 ,Tata Memorial Centre, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and a Trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, fully financed by the Government of India under the administrative control of the department of Automic Energy. The petitioner was employed in August, 1981 as a 3 temporary Ward Boy in Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai which is run by respondent no.1. His service was confirmed in January,1985 . He was also promoted as an Attendant and at the time of his compulsory retirement he was working as Attendant-C. The petitioner has put in total about 24 years of the service. In March, 2006 the administration has received a letter from H.D.F.C.Bank making query about his salary of November, December, 2005 and January, 2006 as he has applied for a personal loan to H.D.F.C.Bank. The Administration found that the petitioner has submitted forged salary slips of these three months to H.D.F.C.Bank wherein total and net payable salary was shown higher. On confirmation of the fact of forgery the administration issued chargesheet dated 3/4/2006 against the petitioner that his conduct contravened the provisions of Staff Service Rules of the Tata Memorial Centre and initiated disciplinary action. The petitioner vide his notice/ letter dated 13/4/2006 submitted his required explanation and stated that as the petitioner was badly in need of loan he handed over the required documents for loan to one of the agents who 4 prepared the loan proposal for the petitioner and has obtained the signatures of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was not aware of such forgery of salary slip. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the Senior administrative Officer / Disciplinary Authority served chargesheet on the petitioner on 3/7/2006 and enquiry under rule 17.2 of Tata Memorial Center Staff Services Rules was conducted. The petitioner maintained the same defence of submission of proposal of loan through agent and signing the documents without knowledge of forgery. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 20/4/2007 held him guilty and since integrity cannot be compromised by any employee under any circumstances the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner not fit to be retained in service and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order before the Appellate Authority i.e. the director ,however, the appellate authority/ director by its order dated 30/10/2007 confirmed the finding and the penalty of the Disciplinary Authority. Against the said order the 5 petitioner has filed this petition. 3] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Senior Administrative Officer is against the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not given the full opportunity to represent his case. The petitioner has not committed any misconduct but the Administrative Officer has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has signed the papers without knowledge of forgery. He has argued that the petitioner does not know English and the petitioner has never accepted the charges levelled against him. He has further submitted that no specific misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner and it was a mistake of H.D.F.C.Bank. He has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has relied on 7 documents , however, the copies of the same wre not furnished alongwith the chargesheet.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Senior Administrative Officer is against the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not given the full 6 opportunity to represent his case. The petitioner has not committed any misconduct but the Administrative Officer has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has signed the papers without knowledge of forgery. He has further stated that the petitioner does not know English and the petitioner has never accepted the charges levelled against him. He has further submitted that no specific misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner and it was a mistake of H.D.F.C. Bank. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the confirmation order are unjust, improper,bad in law and deserve to be set aside. 4] Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to put up his defence and the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority is correct. He has further submitted that the petitioner has admitted his guilt and such act of the petitioner of presenting the forged salary slip showing higher salary to get the benefit is against the established rules of conduct of Tata Memorial Centre Staff Rules and hence the order passed by the 7 Disciplinary Authority should be maintained. 5] The averments in the petition and the documents disclose that the petitioner was served properly with the notice and he was given the opportunity to submit his statement of defence. No procedural lapse is found in the enquiry. The petitioner was made aware of all the documents and was given opportunity to meet those documents and the allegations. Hence there is no violation of the rules of natural justice. The petitioner has admittedly submitted the proposal for loan to H.D.F.C.bank alongwith three salary slips as proof of his income. However, the salary shown in those salary slips i.e. November, December, 2005 and January, 2006 is also admittedly shown higher than his actual salary which was drawn by him during those three months. Thus, the forgery was ex-facie proved. The defence of the petitioner that it was not done by him but the documents were forged by one agent of H.D.F.C.Bank , was rightly rejected by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 8 6] It is pertinent to note that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 30/10/2007 and by letter dated 23/4/2008 he was asked to vacate the staff quarter on or about 29/4/2008. However, we were informed that till today the petitioner has not vacated the staff quarter. 7] The order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority . The petition is dismissed in limine. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)