The Delhi High Court has held that submitting false medical certificates to justify unauthorised absence amounts to grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The Court also clarified that departmental proceedings follow the standard of preponderance of probabilities and not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the judgment. The Bench allowed a writ petition filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). It set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and restored the penalty of dismissal imposed on the employee.
The case, Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Anr. vs. Manoj Kumar, arose from disciplinary proceedings against a former employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.
Background
The respondent joined service as a Peon in 1991. He later earned promotion to the post of Clerk. He remained absent without authorisation from September 2000 to April 2003.
When he rejoined duty, he submitted medical and fitness certificates. He claimed that a Chief Medical Officer of a CGHS dispensary had issued them and stated that he had suffered from Tuberculosis.
The department verified the certificates. It found that the CGHS dispensary had not issued them. The concerned doctor was not on duty on the dates mentioned. The certificates also lacked mandatory serial numbers.
The department initiated disciplinary proceedings. It charged the respondent with submitting fabricated certificates and making false statements to regularise prolonged absence. After a full inquiry, the disciplinary authority found the charges proved and dismissed him from service.
The respondent challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal. It held that forgery could not be established without a criminal prosecution or expert opinion. It also directed reconsideration of a lesser penalty.
The CAG challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.
Submissions Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal wrongly applied the criminal standard of proof. They submitted that departmental proceedings do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. They also contended that the absence of a criminal case for forgery did not prevent the employer from establishing misconduct.
The petitioners further argued that presenting privately obtained certificates as official CGHS documents, along with false declarations, showed lack of integrity and amounted to grave misconduct.
The respondent argued that the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 do not require medical certificates to be issued specifically by CGHS. According to him, a certificate from any authorised medical practitioner would suffice. He also contended that the inquiry proceeded on an incorrect assumption that certificates not issued by CGHS were invalid.
Court’s Findings
The Division Bench examined the record and found substantial material supporting the disciplinary authority’s conclusion. Official verification from CGHS confirmed that its dispensary had not issued the certificates. The concerned doctor was on leave on the dates mentioned. He could not have examined the respondent or issued the certificates in an official capacity.
The Court also noted that the certificates did not bear mandatory serial numbers. The respondent failed to produce supporting medical records such as prescriptions or OPD slips to substantiate his illness during the extended absence.
The Bench held that the Tribunal committed a legal error by insisting on proof beyond reasonable doubt and by requiring expert evidence or criminal prosecution. In departmental proceedings, the employer must establish misconduct on the basis of probabilities.
The Court clarified that the charge was not criminal forgery but serious misconduct. The respondent had submitted false certificates and made untrue statements to secure unauthorised leave. Such conduct reflected dishonesty and breach of trust.
The Bench relied on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, where the Supreme Court held that production of false documents constitutes grave misconduct justifying dismissal. It also relied on Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner, which held that a person who submits forged or fabricated documents is unfit for employment and that dismissal is justified.
The Court concluded that the misconduct was extremely serious. It involved deliberate misrepresentation and furnishing false information. The penalty of dismissal was neither excessive nor disproportionate.
Outcome
The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and restored the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority. The writ petition filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India was allowed.
Case Name: Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Anr. vs. Manoj Kumar
Counsel for the Petitioners: S. S. Hooda, Shaurya Banshtu and Manpreet Singh, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondent: Anil Nauriya, Prakhar Gupta and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
