Introduction:

In CAG v. Manoj Kumar, W.P.(C) 7831/2024, the Delhi High Court examined the limits of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings and the seriousness of dishonesty by public servants, particularly where false medical documents are used to justify unauthorised absence. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan was hearing a writ petition filed by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had interfered with and diluted the punishment of dismissal imposed on a government employee. The respondent, a clerk in the CAG office, had remained absent from duty for a prolonged period and sought to regularise his absence by submitting medical certificates allegedly issued by a CGHS doctor who was admittedly on leave during the relevant period and therefore could not have examined him. After a full-fledged departmental inquiry, the charges of submitting fabricated medical certificates were held to be proved, leading to the employee’s dismissal from service in 2010. The CAT, however, interfered with the punishment, prompting the employer to approach the High Court. The judgment is significant for its strong reaffirmation of integrity as the cornerstone of public service and for reiterating that dishonesty in service matters cannot be trivialised under the guise of sympathy or proportionality.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, representing the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that it exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in interfering with a well-reasoned order of dismissal passed after due compliance with procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice. The petitioners submitted that the charge against the respondent was not a mere case of unauthorised absence but involved a much more serious element of deliberate dishonesty and fraud. The employee had knowingly submitted fabricated medical certificates purportedly issued by a CGHS doctor who was not even present on duty during the relevant time, a fact that stood conclusively established during the inquiry through documentary evidence.

It was further contended that the Inquiry Officer had conducted a detailed examination of the evidence, considered the defence of the employee, and returned a categorical finding that the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority had independently applied its mind to the inquiry report and concurred with the findings before imposing the penalty of dismissal. In such circumstances, the petitioners argued, there was no perversity, procedural irregularity, or violation of natural justice warranting interference by the Tribunal. Emphasis was placed on the settled legal principle that courts and tribunals exercising judicial review do not act as appellate authorities over disciplinary proceedings and cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

The petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner (2023) to submit that employees who submit forged or fabricated documents to their employer strike at the heart of the employer-employee relationship and must be dealt with strictly. It was argued that allowing such conduct to go unpunished or reducing the punishment would send a wrong signal in public administration and erode discipline, integrity, and trust in government service.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent:

The respondent-employee defended the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and contended that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It was argued that the absence from duty was attributable to health-related issues and that the respondent did not stand to gain any substantial or undue benefit from the submission of the medical certificates. The respondent sought to portray the lapse, if any, as technical or procedural rather than one involving moral turpitude or deliberate fraud.

It was further submitted that the Tribunal was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment, as service jurisprudence recognises the doctrine of proportionality. According to the respondent, dismissal from service is the severest penalty and should be reserved for cases involving extreme misconduct. The respondent urged that the Tribunal had taken a balanced view by considering the length of service, personal circumstances, and the nature of the charge, and therefore the High Court ought not to interfere with the Tribunal’s discretionary relief.

The respondent also attempted to question the appreciation of evidence by the Inquiry Officer, suggesting that the findings were harsh and that the possibility of a bona fide mistake or misunderstanding had not been adequately considered. On this basis, it was contended that the High Court should uphold the Tribunal’s order and decline to restore the penalty of dismissal.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the CAG office, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and upheld the dismissal of the respondent from service. The Court began by underscoring the seriousness of the charge, observing that the misconduct in question was not limited to unauthorised absence but involved the deliberate act of dishonesty in producing false and fabricated medical certificates to mislead the employer. Such conduct, the Court held, strikes at the very root of integrity, trust, and probity expected of a public servant.

The Bench categorically held that “the production of false or fabricated medical certificates by a government employee amounts to serious misconduct, reflecting dishonesty and lack of integrity, and justifies dismissal from service.” It noted that the inquiry had conclusively established that the CGHS doctor whose certificates were relied upon by the respondent was on leave during the relevant period and could not have examined the employee. This factual finding was based on documentary evidence and was neither perverse nor unsupported by the record.

Relying on Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commissioner (2023), the Court reiterated that submission of forged documents to an employer is a grave offence that must be dealt with strictly, particularly in public service where integrity is non-negotiable. The Court rejected the respondent’s plea of proportionality, holding that dishonesty and fraud cannot be condoned on sympathetic considerations. It emphasised that dismissal is a justified and proportionate response where the misconduct demonstrates a fundamental lack of integrity.

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, observing that courts do not sit as appellate authorities to reappreciate evidence or substitute their own views on punishment. Interference is warranted only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or where the inquiry is vitiated by violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. Since none of these grounds were present, the Tribunal had erred in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, the High Court restored the order of dismissal and allowed the writ petition.