Back
Delhi HC Restores Dismissal: Fabricated Medical Certificates Seal Fate of Absentee Clerk
In a stern rebuke to leniency in public service discipline, the has set aside a order and reinstated the dismissal of Manoj Kumar, a former clerk with the . A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that submitting false medical certificates to cover nearly three years of unauthorized absence constitutes justifying the harshest penalty.
From Peon to Prolonged Absence: The Troubling Timeline
Manoj Kumar joined CAG as a peon in 1991, rising to clerk by 2000. But from , to , he vanished from duty without leave sanction, claiming later tuberculosis treatment. Rejoining on , he produced medical (April 29) and fitness (April 30) certificates purportedly from Dr. T.P. Singh, CMO at Dispensary, Sunder Vihar.
Verification exposed the sham: confirmed no such issuance. Dr. Singh was on leave those days, retired by 2005, and the certificates lacked serial numbers or token details mandatory for forms. Kumar's allotted dispensary was in Gurgaon, not Sunder Vihar. Worse, he falsely claimed in 2006 that Singh was still CMO.
Charges under , followed in 2006-2007. Inquiry proved guilt; dismissal came , upheld on appeal and revision. CAT in 2023 quashed it, demanding criminal forgery proof and expert opinion—prompting CAG's writ.
CAG's Fiery Defense vs. Kumar's Rule-Based Rebuttal
CAG argued CAT overstepped bounds, ignoring inquiry findings on falsity via letters, doctor's absence, and missing certificate features. No need for criminal prosecution; departmental standard is , not . Projecting private certificates as official ones screamed lack of integrity.
Kumar countered: , then allowed any authorized practitioner's certificate for non-gazetted staff—no mandate. Signatures matched; Singh later confirmed issuance. Dispute was mere "institutional attribution," not forgery. Inquiry fixated wrongly on dispensary origin.
's Tight Leash: Precedents Reinforce Discipline
Drawing from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996), the Bench stressed courts don't re-appraise evidence or substitute penalties unless perverse or procedurally flawed. CAT erred by importing criminal standards, quashing chargesheets without proportionality analysis.
Echoing Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022), false documents erode trust—materiality irrelevant; dismissal apt. In State of Odisha v. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo (2020), belated medical certificates sans records failed to excuse seven-year absence. Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013) and a recent Delhi HC ruling in Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commr. (2023) affirmed: fraud taints service, no sympathy for forgers.
No contemporaneous records—prescriptions, OPD slips—bolstered Kumar's TB claim. False 2006 statement on doctor's status sealed dishonesty.
Key Observations from the Bench
"is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made... The Court/Tribunal in its power ofdoes not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence."
"In disciplinary proceedings, the charges... have to be proved by applying the standard of ''... the learned CAT has erroneously applied the standards of criminal proceedings i.e. proving guilt ''."
"Production of false documents constitutesundermining the employer’s trust... How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged... certificate... be trusted by the employer?"
"A doctor who is not on duty could not have examined a patient on the said dates or issued medical and fitness certificates on behalf of the."
Dismissal Stands: A Blueprint for Public Service Integrity
The Court allowed CAG's petition:
"The impugned order dated
is set aside and the order of dismissal dated
, as upheld by the Appellate/Revisionary Authority, is restored."
This reinforces that prolonged absenteeism propped by dubious certificates invites dismissal, sidestepping CAT's overreach. For government employers, it's a green light to enforce integrity sans criminal pursuits; for employees, a reminder: certificates of convenience won't fly without proof. Future cases may cite it to curb Tribunal substitutions, prioritizing discipline over doubt.
