Brief Facts 

In the matter of Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan After the passing of her husband, a driver employed by the Bihar Bhawan, the petitioner was awarded a compassionate appointment. The petitioner was given a show cause notice while she was employed because she was allegedly always making noise when intoxicated day and night, upsetting the residents of Bihar Bhawan as well as their guests and neighbours. The staff car driver was allegedly threatened by the petitioner in the assistant manager’s office, according to the aforementioned show cause letter. The petitioner was then suspended for misconduct and indiscipline for the offences of misbehaviour while intoxicated, assault and abuse towards residential staff members in staff quarters, and threatening the staff car driver. The respondent undertook a preliminary investigation during the suspension time, and it was discovered that the certificate provided by the petitioner to confirm her eligibility as a Class 8th pass and issued by the headmaster was a forgery. The petitioner’s completion date for the eighth grade was listed as 10/2/1988, however eighth-grade instruction in that school didn’t begin until 2007. After that, departmental procedures were started against the petitioner because a falsified certificate of education had been submitted. After that, an investigation was carried out, during which the allegations against the petitioner were established. The present writ petition was filed to overturn the termination decision since the petitioner had been fired from his or her position.

Delhi High Court decision 

In a case where a wife-petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds was terminated due to the submission of a forged educational qualification certificate, a single judge bench of Delhi High Court Justice Mini Pushkarna opined that the fact remained that the petitioner submitted a forged document in support of her educational qualification at the time of seeking compassionate appointment and that, as a result, the petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts. The Court additionally stated that if someone presented false and forged documents, they were unfit to work and that if the accusation against the petitioner is found to be true, the respondent’s decision to terminate the petitioner’s employment could not be criticised.

The petitioner claimed falsely that she did not take part in departmental procedures or that she was not aware of any departmental proceedings until she received the notice of termination, according to the court. The Court additionally noted that it was abundantly obvious from the papers in the file that the petitioner was well-informed of the departmental procedures against her and that she actively took part in them. In addition, the Court stated that “employees who were found guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer, had to be dealt with strictly and if a person submitted forged and fabricated documents, then such a person was certainly unfit to be employed.” Such a worker could not be accorded any pity or compassion. Therefore, the respondent’s punishment of removal from service could not be criticised when the charge against the petitioner is proven. The Court denied this petition.