Govt Employee Furnishing False Medical Certificate To Justify Absence Is Grave Misconduct Warranting Dismissal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a government employee who furnishes a false medical certificate to justify unauthorised absence commits grave misconduct, warranting the penalty of dismissal from service.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was hearing a writ petition filed by the CAG office challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had interfered with the punishment of dismissal imposed on a government employee for submitting fabricated medical certificates.
Respondent-clerk had absented himself for an extended period and submitted certificates purportedly issued by a CGHS doctor who was on leave and could not have examined him.
The Inquiry Officer, after examining documentary evidence and considering the defence raised, returned a categorical finding that the charges stood proved.
The Disciplinary Authority concurred that the Inquiry Officer dismissed the Respondent from service in 2010.
In this backdrop he High Court said, “the production of false or fabricated medical certificates by a government employee amounts to serious misconduct, reflecting dishonesty and lack of integrity, and justifies dismissal from service.”
Reliance was placed on Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commr. (2023) where the Delhi High Court held that employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer, have to be dealt with in a strict manner.
The Court noted that the charge against the employee was not merely unauthorised absence, but the act of dishonesty in producing false medical documents to mislead the employer and secure undue benefit. Such conduct, the Court observed, strikes at the root of integrity and trust expected of a public servant.
“The act of furnishing a false medical certificate to justify unauthorised absence cannot be treated lightly. It reflects a lack of probity and integrity and constitutes grave misconduct,” the Court held.
It further reiterated that the Court exercising power of judicial review does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence. “Interference is warranted where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where the inquiry is vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.”
As such, it set aside the CAT's order and upheld the dismissal of the employee from service.
Appearance: Dr. S. S. Hooda, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu and Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr. Anil Nauriya, Mr. Prakhar Gupta and Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advs. for Respondent
Case title: CAG v. Manoj Kumar
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7831/2024