IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN, JJ.
Comptroller And Auditor General Of India & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Manoj Kumar - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7831 of 2024 and CM APPL. 32435 of 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the writ petition and employment history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of misconduct and resultant disciplinary actions. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. judicial review limited to procedural fairness. (Para 10 , 30 , 41) |
| 4. standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 29 , 34 , 36) |
| 5. restoration of disciplinary penalty upheld. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present writ petition has been field under
2. In the present case, the Petitioner No. 1 is the head of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the Petitioner No. 2 is an independent authority/Office under the aegis of the Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent is a former employee of the Petitioner No. 1.
3. Succinctly stated, the quintessential facets governing the present dispute are that the Respondent had joined service as a Peon on 27.11.1991 and was promoted to the post of Daftry on 01.01.1998 and to the post of Clerk on 03.01.2000.
4. Undisputedly, he was absent without authorization from 04.09.2000 to 29.04.2003, i.e., for a continuous period of nearly three years, without obtaining prior sanction of leave. According to the Respondent, he was suffering from Tuberculosis during this period.
5. Upon joining back service on 30.04.2003, the Respondent submitted Medical Certificate dated 29.04.2003 and Fitness Certificate dated 30.04.2003 purportedly issued by one Dr. T.P. Singh, then CMO, CGHS, Sunder Vihar.
6. Correspondence was thereafter exchanged between the Petitioners and the Central Government Health Scheme (‘CGHS’) authorities seeking verification of the medical and fitness certificates submitted by the Respondent. Vide communication dated 08.02.2006, the Additional Director (HQ), CGHS informed the Petitioners that no such certificates had been issued from the CGHS dispensaries concerned.
7. On 11.05.2006, a charge memorandum was issued to the Respondent alleging submission of false/fabricated certificates. In Reply, the Respondent vide his letter dated 05.06.2006, not only denied the article of charge but also submitted that the medical certificate dated 29.04.2003 and fitness certificate dated 30.04.2003 issued to him by Dr. T.P. Singh were genuine as the doctor had never refused/denied this fact. The Respondent further submitted that Dr. T.P. Singh was still the CMO, CGHS Dispensary, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi and the doctor had again certified on 03.06.2006 that the certificates in question were issued by him.
8. Since, certain additional facts were placed on record which required verification, the above chargesheet was withdrawn. A fresh Chargesheet dated 05.03.2007 was issued against the Respondent alleging giving false statements that Dr. T.P. Singh is still a sitting CMO, CGHS and submission of false/fabricated medical/fitness certificates in connivance with the said doctor, amounting to misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Article of charges are as under: -
“Statement of article of charge framed against Shri Manoj Kumar, Clerk
Article
Shri Manoj Kumar, Clerk absented himself from duty w.e.f. 4.9.2000 to 29.4.2003 unauthorisedly Shri Manoj Kumar joined duty on 30.4.2003 and submitted medical certificate dated 29.4.2003 and fitness certificate dated 30.4.2003 alleged to have been issued by Dr. (Captain) T.P. Singh, CMO, CGHS Dispensary, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi in support of his leave for the period from 5.1.2001 to 29.4.2003 on the ground of self-illness. Subsequently it revealed that the medic
The submission of false medical certificates by a government employee constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal from service under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The main legal point established is that the High Court's interference with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is limited to cases of shockingly disproportionate punishment or proce....
Dismissal – When charges are grave, caution and circumspection that should be exercised by authorities should be greater.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
Disciplinary proceedings must observe due process and require substantial evidence; merely procedural lapses do not constitute misconduct.
Grant of reinstatement - Court will not ordinarily interfere in the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings to substitute its own conclusion on penalty except where the punishment imposed ....
Disciplinary charge-sheet must be issued by authorized officer as per regulations; prior approval insufficient if not signed by Director on behalf of competent authority for Group ‘A’ employees, rend....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.