CAT Patna Sets Aside Inquiry Reports, Orders Fresh Probe in Certificate Forgery Case: Mandates Fair Opportunity to Employees - 2025-04-05

Laws, Courts & Judgments.

CAT Patna Orders Fresh Inquiry into Postal Employees' Certificate Forgery Allegations, Emphasizes Fair Hearing

Patna, India – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, has delivered a significant judgment in a batch of cases concerning Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) employees of the Department of Posts, directing fresh disciplinary inquiries into allegations of forged certificates. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. K. Kumar Rajesh Chandra (Member A) and Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma (Member J), set aside previous inquiry reports and removal/dismissal orders, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for employees to defend themselves.

Case Background: Allegations of Forged Certificates

The cases originated from allegations that several GDS employees secured their positions using forged certificates purportedly issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. A PIL in the Patna High Court led to a CBI investigation, which resulted in charge sheets against many of these employees. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the postal department, but these proceedings have now been challenged before the CAT.

The applicants, mainly working as Branch Postmasters (BPM) and Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (MD/MC) in the Samastipur and Madhubani Postal Divisions , contested the inquiry reports and charge memos, primarily on the grounds that the inquiries were not completed within the timeframe stipulated by the Tribunal in a previous order and that they were not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses.

Arguments and Tribunal's Observations

The employees argued that the disciplinary proceedings were unduly delayed and violated the Tribunal’s earlier order setting a six-month deadline for completion. They also contended that the inquiry reports relied on verification reports from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board without allowing them to cross-examine the author of these reports, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The respondents, representing the Department of Posts, acknowledged the delay but attributed it to the COVID-19 pandemic and departmental engagements. They maintained that ample opportunity was given to the employees and that the charges were serious, involving forged certificates. They cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that those who obtain jobs based on forged documents should not be retained in service.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant documents, observed that while the seriousness of the allegations regarding forged certificates cannot be ignored, procedural fairness in the disciplinary proceedings is paramount.

> "In the present case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made by observing the principle of fair opportunity to the diligent officers. The order to stop the Disciplinary Proceeding may result into authorization of the charge officer to continue in service on the basis of alleged forged certificate and that should not be fair. On the other hand inquiry should not be conducted in a manner where proper opportunity is not provided to cross examine the witnesses who are the author of the documents."

The Tribunal specifically noted that the Inquiry Officer had relied on a verification report from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board without examining the author of the report and allowing the employees to cross-examine them. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in S.C. Grirotra Vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank , the CAT emphasized the mandatory requirement of examining and allowing cross-examination of the author of relied-upon documents.

Court's Decision and Directions

Ultimately, the CAT quashed the inquiry report dated 14.06.2022 and related removal/dismissal orders in the cases of Manoj Kumar and Krishna Kumar Pradhan. It directed the reinstatement of these two employees, allowing the department to place them under suspension pending fresh inquiry and entitled to subsistence allowance.

The Tribunal remanded all cases back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh inquiries, explicitly directing them to:

Commence fresh inquiries strictly adhering to the Rule of Law.

Complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Provide a fair opportunity to the charged officers to cross-examine the author of the verification report from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

The Tribunal also clarified that the previous order setting a six-month time limit (in OA No. 784 of 2016) would not impede the commencement of a fair inquiry, exercising its powers under Rule 24 of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 to ensure justice is served.

> "We direct that order dt. 26.08.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 784 of 2016 i.e. 'to complete the Disciplinary Proceeding (if any pending) against the applicant within six month.' may not become an obstacle in commencement of the fair inquiry in the sensitive facts and circumstances inter alia involved in the present case."

The judgment underscores the critical balance between addressing serious allegations of document forgery and ensuring procedural fairness and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings against government employees. The fresh inquiries, mandated to be completed within six months, will now proceed with a clear directive to provide employees a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.