1. Termination of service based on allegation of fake appointment letter — Challenge to termination based on dispatch register entries. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 433
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G.Balakrishnan : S.R.Babu
Subodh Kumar Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 1716 of 2001
Date of Decision : 3/2/01
Termination of service based on the allegation of a fake appointment letter cannot be sustained if based solely on dispatch register entries; the actual appointment letter must be examined to determine its authenticity.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Termination of Service - Validity of termination based on register entries - Termination of services on the ground that the appointment letter is fake cannot be inferred merely by looking at the issue register, as numbers noted therein may be a result of a mistake - The actual nature of the appointment letter itself must be examined to determine if it is forged - Failure to conduct such an inquiry renders the termination order unsustainable. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An employee appointed as a Compounder and subsequently confirmed in service was terminated on the grounds that his appointment letter was fake. This conclusion was reached by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the High Court based on the absence of the appointment letter's record in the office's issue register.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority and the High Court erred by relying solely on the dispatch register rather than examining the authenticity of the appointment letter itself.
Issues: Whether the termination of an employee's services is legally sustainable when based solely on the absence of a record in a dispatch register without an examination of the actual appointment letter.
Ratio Decidendi: A conclusion that an appointment letter is fake cannot be inferred merely from a register, as such records are prone to clerical errors; a proper inquiry must be conducted into the actual nature of the appointment letter to justify disciplinary action. (Para 6)
Result: Appeal allowed; orders of the disciplinary authority and High Court set aside; appellant to be reinstated with 50% back wages.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged the validity of termination based on register entries — State contended that appointments were made without proper authority. (Para 7 )
3. Termination based solely on dispatch registers is insufficient; the actual appointment letter must be examined to determine if it is forged. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Disciplinary action for a fake appointment cannot be based on dispatch register entries alone; the authenticity of the appointment letter itself must be verified. (Para 6 )
5. Orders set aside — Appellant reinstated with 50% back wages — Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary action. (Para 9 )
6. Can service termination for a fake appointment be based solely on dispatch register entries?
No. The court held that dispatch registers only indicate the despatch of letters and may contain mistakes. To justify disciplinary action, the actual nature and authenticity of the appointment letter itself must be examined. (Para 6 )
7. What is the required focus of an inquiry when an appointment letter is alleged to be forged?
The inquiry must examine the actual letter of appointment issued to the employee rather than relying on secondary records, such as issue registers, to infer that the appointment is fake. (Para 6 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE appellant before us was appointed as a Compounder on 12.11.1982 and his services stood confirmed by an order made on 15.12.1994.
(3) ON 1.1.1997 a showcause notice was issued to the appellant to give reply to the same by 3.1.1997 and his services were terminated. The ground upon which the services were sought to be terminated is as follows:
"THE Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, vide letter 2300 dated 23.12.1996 (copy enclosed) has informed the undersigned that letter no. 2681 dated 12.11.1982 no appointment letter has been issued to anyone. Hence, your appointment is fake."
(4) ULTIMATELY an order was made by the Chief Medical Officer stating that the appointment letter of the appellant which has been shown vide memorandum No. 2681 dated 12.11.1982 is a letter of the office which is not in regard to the appointment of anyone. On that basis his services were terminated. He filed a writ petition before the High Court.
(5) THE learned Single Judge by an order made on 3.9.1998 dismissed the same. It appears that certain records were produced before the court and when the stand had been taken by the appellant that the letter of appointment was not forged, on seeing the issue register in question the learned Single Judge felt satisfied that it could not be the letter of appointment. This view, however, stood affirmed by the Division Bench. Hence, this appeal before us.
(6) WHAT should have been really examined in the case is the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate despatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issued to the appellant was a fake one there was certainly a cause for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred for numbers noted therein may have been as a result of a mistake. Therefore, the inquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That inquiry was not done by the learned Single Judge.
(7) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant pointed out the infirmity in the order made by the disciplinary authority and learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench. However, Mr. B.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, very strenuously urged that many appointments had been made without issuing appropriate orders or emanating from appropriate authorities and, therefore, the situation was taken note of by the learned Judges of the High Court and the orders made by the High Court should not be disturbed and he relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [JT 1996(10) SC 525] and U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani & Ors. [JT 1990 (3) SC 690].
(8) WE have carefully looked into the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. We do not find the relevance of the same so far as this case is concerned. The decision in Ashwani Kumars case (supra) is concerned with appointments that had been made to in excess of sanctioned posts under the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme by an authority in a manner not authorised. Hence this Court made the order in question, which is not the position in the present case. Nor, do we think the decision in Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwanis case (supra) has any application because that case was in respect of certain orders issued by the court which were stated to have been forged, which is not the position in the present case at all.
(9) THEREFORE, we have no option but to set aside the orders made by the disciplinary authority as well as that of the High Court. The result is that the appellant will have to be reinstated in service. He will be entitled to back wages to the extent of 50% which shall be paid within three months from the receipt of the order. It is made clear that if the respondents still feel that it is appropriate to pursue with the disciplinary action proposed a
