Disciplinary Authority Cannot Reject Medical Records Without Ascertaining Authenticity Before Dismissing Delinquent: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held that neither the Court nor disciplinary authorities can refuse to consider medical records produced by an employee without first ascertaining their veracity, and that failure to do so vitiates disciplinary proceedings.The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the petitioner's removal from service in the Central Reserve Police Force, along with the rejection of his statutory appeal against the said order. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: “Neither this Court nor the respondents can brush aside or refuse to consider the medical records produced by the petitioner without ascertaining the veracity of the said records.” The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, had proceeded on sanctioned medical leave in December 2005. It was his case that upon attempting to rejoin duty, his health deteriorated and he remained under continuous medical treatment at various government hospitals, including District Hospital Saharanpur, CHC Baraut, and District Hospital Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner contended that he had informed the authorities about his illness and had submitted medical records along with his communications seeking extension of leave. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the grounds of unauthorised absence, and the enquiry was conducted ex parte, culminating in his removal from service. The respondents contended that the petitioner had overstayed his leave without permission and had failed to respond to repeated communications requiring him to report for duty and participate in the enquiry. It was further contended that the petitioner did not produce any credible medical record during the enquiry proceedings. The Court examined the record and found that the petitioner had, in fact, submitted multiple communications to the Enquiry Officer informing him about his illness and inability to participate in the proceedings. It also noted that medical certificates and treatment records issued by government hospitals had been produced by the petitioner. The Court observed that even the Disciplinary Authority had acknowledged receipt of medical records while passing the impugned order, yet proceeded to discard them without proper examination, holding that “It was not open either to the Enquiry Officer or to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Appellate Authority to discard the medical records produced by the petitioner without ascertaining the authenticity and veracity of these documents”.Relying on Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank (2014), the Court emphasised that mere unauthorised absence cannot automatically warrant punishment unless it is shown to be wilful and deliberate. In cases where illness is pleaded, the authorities are required to verify the claim rather than reject it summarily. The Court further reiterated that medical certificates cannot be disbelieved without any finding that they are fabricated or false. It also referred to Union of India v. I.S. Singh (1994), wherein it was held that “the Enquiry Officer was duty bound to pay attention to the letters of the delinquent official wherein he had stated that he was suffering from an ailment.”The Court found that the enquiry had been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner's defence based on medical grounds was neither properly examined nor verified. It held that proceeding ex parte in such circumstances was unjustified. The Court concluded that “the respondents have committed a serious breach of principles of natural justice by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner while holding an enquiry against him, … if the petitioner was really suffering from a serious disease like Typhoid and Hepatitis, it would not have been possible for him to present himself before the Enquiry Officer, … without ascertaining the truthfulness or otherwise of the said contention of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have proceeded to hold the enquiry against the petitioner ex-parte and pass the impugned order of his removal from service”.The Court further remarked that “not even the Appellate Authority has applied its mind to this aspect of the matter inasmuch as it has proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner in a cryptic manner, without assigning any reasons”.Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, with liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry after verifying the authenticity of the medical records and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Case Title: Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 126AppearancesAdvocate Vikas Mangotra appeared for the petitioner, while CGSC Ranjeet Singh Jamwal represented the Union of India.Click Here to Read/Download Judgment

Disciplinary Authority Cannot Reject Medical Records Without Ascertaining Authenticity Before Dismissing Delinquent: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Disciplinary Authority Cannot Reject Medical Records Without Ascertaining Authenticity Before Dismissing Delinquent: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers