Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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:

(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."