Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Kandla Port Trust (now Deendayal Port Trust) (employer) vs. Sanjay Jagdishbhai Bhaty (employee).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Letters Patent Appeal (No. 1077 of 2021) challenging a Single Judge’s judgment that set aside two disciplinary punishments.
  • Background:
  • On 27 July 2015 a major penalty proceeding was initiated against the employee, resulting in the first charge‑sheet (four charges) alleging non‑production of original educational certificates, lack of requisite journalism qualification, and submission of an unrecognised journalism certificate.
  • Inquiry Officer’s report dated 24 Nov 2016 found all four charges proved; Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service on 6 July 2017.
  • A second charge‑sheet dated 18 Feb 2016 alleged (i) filing a private complaint against the Chief Vigilance Officer without permission, (ii) submitting an unauthorised affidavit/report in a court case, (iii) tampering/forging the report, and (iv) misuse of position to submit the forged report.
  • Inquiry Officer held charges II‑IV proved; charge I was dismissed as a repetition. The employer, after the stay on the removal order, imposed dismissal from service on 14 Sept 2018.
  • Single Judge’s Findings (dated prior to this appeal):
  • The employer could not impose dismissal after having already ordered removal, especially when the removal order was stayed.
  • No proof that the employee lacked the required journalism qualification; the certificate produced, though not a recognised diploma, had been accepted at the time of appointment.
  • No evidence that the employee tampered with the confidential report.
  • Consequently, both the removal (6 July 2017) and dismissal (14 Sept 2018) orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to impose only a minor penalty – withholding of annual/yearly increment.
  • Employer’s Appeal: Senior counsels argued that the Single Judge improperly re‑appraised evidence and that the employer was entitled to proceed with the second inquiry despite the stay on the first penalty.
  • Employee’s Position: Appeared in person, contended the inquiries were retaliatory for exposing alleged wrongdoing, and maintained that the qualifications were adequate and the alleged tampering was unproven.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the employer’s appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order.
  • Both the removal (6 July 2017) and dismissal (14 Sept 2018) punishments are quashed.
  • The case is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to consider imposing only the minor penalty of withholding the employee’s annual increment with future effect.
  • The employee accepted the order; no further appeal was filed.

Topics: Employment Law, Port Authority Dispute