Submitting False Medical Certificates To Obtain Leave Is Grave Misconduct Justifying Dismissal : Delhi HC

Background Facts

The respondent was a former employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. He had joined service as a Peon in 1991. Subsequently, he was promoted to Clerk. He remained absent from duty without authorization for a continuous period from September 2000 to April 2003. He claimed that he was suffering from Tuberculosis. Upon rejoining, he submitted medical and fitness certificates issued by a Chief Medical Officer of a CGHS dispensary. The department verified the certificates and found that those were not issued by the CGHS facility. The doctor was not on duty on the relevant dates and the certificates lacked standard serial numbers.

Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for submitting fabricated certificates and making false statements to regularize his prolonged absence.

The charges were proven after a full inquiry. Therefore, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal. It was held by the Tribunal that forgery could not be established without a criminal case or expert opinion. Further it was directed that a lesser penalty should be reconsidered.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

It was contended by the CAG that the Tribunal erred in demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt and in holding that misconduct could not be established because no criminal case for forgery was initiated. It was further contended that submission of privately obtained certificates as official CGHS documents supported by false statements, constituted grave misconduct involving lack of integrity.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, there was no requirement for a medical certificate to be issued specifically by a CGHS, and a certificate from any authorized medical practitioner was sufficient. It was contended that the inquiry was erroneous as it was based on the flawed assumption that the certificates were invalid because they were not issued by CGHS.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the disciplinary authority's order was based on substantial evidence including verification from CGHS that the certificates were not issued by its dispensary. It was found that the concerned doctor was on leave on the dates of issuance of certificates. A doctor who was not on duty could not have examined a patient on the said dates or issued medical and fitness certificates on behalf of the CGHS.

Further it was found that the certificates lacked mandatory serial numbers. It was noted that the respondent failed to produce any medical records, such as prescriptions or OPD slips, to substantiate his claim of illness during the prolonged absence.

It was held by the Court that the Tribunal committed an error by applying the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and by insisting on an expert opinion or a criminal case for forgery. It was held that in departmental proceedings, a person can be held guilty if the facts show that it most likely happened, even if there is no complete proof.

It was further observed that the charge was not criminal forgery but the serious misconduct of submitting false certificates and making false statements to secure unauthorized leave. It was a grave act reflecting dishonesty and a breach of trust.

Relying on precedent in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, it was held that the production of false documents constitutes grave misconduct undermining the employer's trust that warrants the penalty of dismissal from service. The judgment in Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commr was also relied upon wherein it was held that if a person submits forged and fabricated documents, then such a person is certainly unfit to be employed and the punishment of dismissal from service is justified.

It was held by the Division Bench that the misconduct was extremely grave, involving not merely absence, but intentional misrepresentation and furnishing false information. Hence, the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate.

Hence, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the order of dismissal from service was restored by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the CAG was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Anr. vs. Manoj Kumar

Case No. : W.P.(C) 7831/2024

Counsel for the Petitioners : S. S. Hooda, Shaurya Banshtu and Manpreet Singh, Advs

Counsel for the Respondent : Anil Nauriya, Prakhar Gupta and Sumita Hazarika, Advs