Constitution of India: Art.226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Court – Interference with the decision of disciplinary authority, scope of – Respondent-original writ petitioner was appointed as casual employee in 1982 – He applied for the post of Refueling Helper and in qualification he mentioned Secondary School – Chief Vigilance Officer received a complaint that respondent had secured his job by submitting false and forged certificates – Similar complaint was also made to the police authorities – Despite repetitive requests and follow up by the authorities, the respondent did not submit the original SSLC Certificate – The authorities of Secondary Board were requested to check up their records – Board informed that as per record, SSLC mark sheet did not belong to the respondent – Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the respondent – After taking into consideration the gravity of the acts of misconduct, Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services – Respondent was also prosecuted by the Criminal Court, however, he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent filed writ petition before High Court – High Court held that punishment imposed on the respondent was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and directed to reinstate the respondent – Hence instant appeal – Held: Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct – The question is one of trust – Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial – The question is not of having an intention or mens rea but is of producing the fake/forged certificate – Respondent’s case was that he pleaded guilty and admitted the submission of forged and fake certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment would be imposed, however, nothing on record to show who gave such assurance – The conduct on part of respondent showed his malafide intention – He was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving benefit of doubt and there was no honourable acquittal – Once there was an admission on the part of the respondent thereafter whether he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court is immaterial – Unless and until it is found that punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was shockingly disproportionate and/or there was procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed – When a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court under Art.226 – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority – Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 7.1][689-A-B]
2. It was a case on behalf of the petitioner – original writ petitioner before the High Court that he pleaded guilty and admitted that he had submitted a forged and fake certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment will be imposed. However, except the bald statement, there is no further evidence on the same. Nothing was mentioned on record as to who gave him such an assurance. [Para 7.2][689-C-D]
3. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioner that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC in respect of the same certificate is concerned, the said contention is neither here nor there and is of no assistance to the original writ petitioner. Apart from the fact that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving benefit of doubt and there was no honourable acquittal, in the present case before the Disciplinary Authority the original writ petitioner as such admitted that he produced the fake and forged certificate. Therefore, once there was an admission on the part of the respondent – original writ petitioner, thereafter whether he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court is immaterial. [Para 7.4][689-H; 690-A-B]
4. As per the settled position of law, unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which as such is a prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. [Para 7.5][690-D]
5. In any case in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the charge and misconduct of producing the fake and false SSLC Certificate proved, when a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service, the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the original writ petitioner from service on the misconduct proved is restored. [Paras 7.6 and 8][690-F-H; 691-B]
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : [2000]
4 Suppl. SCR 693; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 549; Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 217; Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 : [2016] 4 SCR 473; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 : [2013]
17 SCR 309 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.