Delhi High Court overturns CAG order; Dismissal of clerk for submitting fake medical certificate justified
Delhi High Court has clarified that submitting a fake medical certificate for being absent from duty without permission is a serious indiscipline and for this the employee can also be removed from the job. The division bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the dismissal of a clerk of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, setting aside the CAT (Central Employees’ Tribunal) order. Absence with a fake medical certificate was considered a serious indiscipline. The criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” does not apply in departmental proceedings.
Fake medical certificates were issued claiming TB disease
According to Live Law report, the defendant was a former employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, recruited as a peon in 1991 and later promoted as a clerk. He remained absent from duty continuously from September 2000 to April 2003. He claimed that he had TB and on return submitted medical and fitness certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer of CGHS Dispensary. The department examined the certificates and found that they were not issued by CGHS. The doctor who issued the certificate was not on duty on that date. The certificates also did not have standard serial numbers. The division bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the CAT order and upheld the dismissal of the clerk.
Was punished with removal from job in disciplinary action
The respondent, an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, remained absent from duty continuously from September 2000 to April 2003. He submitted fake medical certificates and made false statements to make his long absences appear regular. After thorough investigation, the department found that the certificates were not genuine and the doctor was not present on duty at that time. After a thorough investigation, the disciplinary authority punished the respondent with dismissal from service. The division bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the CAT order and upheld the dismissal.
CAT had put a stay on the punishment
The defendant challenged the sentencing order in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). CAT canceled the decision to fire him and held that fraud cannot be proven without a criminal case or expert opinion. Apart from this, CAT also said that reducing the punishment should be reconsidered.
CAG had challenged CAT’s order in the High Court
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against an order of the Central Services Tribunal (CAT). CAG has said in the petition that the tribunal made a mistake by seeking direct evidence without any doubt and assuming that wrongdoing could not be proven. The petition also states that no criminal case was initiated for forgery in this case. Despite this, submitting privately obtained certificates as official documents of CGHS (Central Government Health Services) is a serious misconduct involving lack of integrity. CAG has demanded from the court that the tribunal’s order should be canceled and the correct legal procedure should be adopted in this matter.
What was the defendant’s argument?
Argument of the respondent: On the other hand, the respondent submitted in the court that there was no need to specifically issue a medical certificate from the CGHS under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. He said that a certificate from any authorized medical practitioner was sufficient. It also said that the investigation was based on the misconception that the certificates were invalid because they were not issued by CGHS.
The High Court ruled that the disciplinary authority’s order was based on solid evidence.
During the hearing in the Delhi High Court in the case regarding the order of CAG and CAT, the court found that the order of the disciplinary authority was based on verification from CGHS and concrete evidence. It also emerged in the hearing that the doctors concerned were on leave on the dates of issue of certificates, and as they were not on duty, it was not possible to examine any patient or issue medical and fitness certificates on behalf of CGHS.
Furthermore, the Court also noted that the certificates did not have the required serial numbers, and the defendants could not produce any medical records such as prescriptions or OPD slips to prove the claim of illness during their prolonged absence.
High Court admitted that CAG made a mistake
The High Court said that in departmental proceedings, a person can be convicted only when the facts show that there is a high probability of such happening, even if there is not complete evidence. The court also clarified that the allegation is not of criminal forgery, but submitting fake certificates and giving false statements for taking leave without permission is a serious misconduct. This was considered an act of dishonesty and breaking of trust.
High Court cited two old cases
During the hearing, the High Court found that the order of the disciplinary authority was based on CGHS verification and solid evidence. The Court noted that the concerned doctor was on leave on the dates of issue of the certificate, and hence it was not possible to examine any patient or issue a medical and fitness certificate on behalf of the CGHS. Additionally the certificates did not have the required serial numbers, and the defendants could not produce any medical records to support the claim of illness during their lengthy absences.
The High Court also held that the CAT had erred in applying the criminal standard to the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The court clarified that the allegation was not of criminal forgery, but submitting fake certificates and giving false statements for taking leave without permission is a serious misconduct. This was considered an act of dishonesty and breaking of trust.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar – Showing false documents is a wrongful act and undermines the confidence of the employer, which can lead to the punishment of dismissal from the job. Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner – A person who submits fake and fabricated documents cannot be considered eligible for the job.
Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp
Comments are closed.