The Delhi High Court has clarified that judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is concerned with the decision-making process, not the correctness of the decision itself, and the imposition of a penalty is the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. The Court emphasised that the standard of proof in such proceedings is the “preponderance of probabilities”, and the stricter standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” from criminal law is inapplicable.
The Court held that the act of submitting false or fabricated documents, particularly to justify unauthorized absence, constitutes grave misconduct that demonstrates dishonesty and a lack of integrity, undermining the employer’s trust. Courts should not interfere with the penalty of dismissal for such misconduct unless it is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court.
Furthermore, the Court said that fraud and misrepresentation vitiate all judicial and administrative acts, and a person who has committed fraud should not be permitted to benefit from their dishonest actions. Accordingly, the Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) committed a manifest error by interfering with the penalty and quashing the charge memos, as it substituted its own assessment and applied an incorrect standard of proof without providing cogent reasons.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the CAT’s impugned order dated 29 May 2023, and restored the Disciplinary Authority’s order of dismissal dated 18 June 2010, which had been upheld by the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and the court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence. Interference is only warranted if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or if the inquiry is vitiated by procedural violations.
The Bench found that the CAT overlooked that the charge was not of “forgery” in a criminal sense, but of submitting false certificates and making false statements to regularize a prolonged unauthorized absence. This was so, when the evidence established that the certificates were not issued by the CGHS dispensary, the doctor was not on duty on the relevant dates, and the certificates lacked official features like serial numbers.
Moreover, the Bench noted that the respondent has failed to produce any other contemporaneous medical records to substantiate his illness. Furthermore, the respondent made a demonstrably false statement that the doctor was still a sitting Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in 2006, when he had retired in 2005. Accordingly, the Bench concluded that such conduct, involving intentional misrepresentation and furnishing false information, was extremely grave and reflected a lack of integrity.
Briefly, the case involves a writ filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG – petitioner) challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. The respondent was an employee who was absent without authorization from 4 September 2000 to 29 April 2003. Upon rejoining, he submitted medical and fitness certificates purportedly issued by Dr. T.P. Singh, CMO, CGHS, Sunder Vihar, to justify his absence. However, the verification by the petitioners revealed that these certificates were not issued by the concerned CGHS dispensary. Accordingly, a charge memorandum was issued on 11 May 2006, which was later withdrawn and replaced with a fresh chargesheet on 5 March 2007.
The new charges alleged that the respondent submitted false/fabricated certificates in connivance with the doctor and made false statements, thereby violating Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Later, a departmental inquiry found the charges to be proven, and the Disciplinary Authority, concurring with the findings, imposed the penalty of “Dismissal from service”. This penalty was upheld by the Appellate Authority and in a Revision Petition.
The respondent then approached the CAT, which set aside the disciplinary action, primarily on the grounds that forgery could not be established without an expert opinion and that no criminal case had been initiated.
Appearances:
Advocates Dr. S. S. Hooda, Shaurya Banshtu and Manpreet Singh, for the Petitioner
Advocates Anil Nauriya, Prakhar Gupta and Sumita Hazarika, for the Respondent
