Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that securing public employment through a forged educational certificate is an act that cannot be excused, and that a dismissal based on such misconduct does not fail solely for want of a full departmental inquiry . Addressing the challenge to the termination of a Delhi Police constable, the Court restored the penalty after noting that the allegation of forgery remained unanswered and was confirmed by the issuing authority. It concluded that once the foundational fact of falsification stands established, the termination order remains legally valid.

The matter concerns the dismissal of a police constable whose appointment in 1988 was later questioned when a complaint surfaced in 1996 alleging that he had used a forged educational certificate to secure the post . The competent authority examined the certificate and obtained confirmation from the issuing institution that the document was not genuine. Relying on this material, the disciplinary authority issued an order in 1997 removing the constable from service without initiating a full departmental inquiry.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Removal Of Branch Post Master Who Embezzled Deposits; “Relationship Of A Customer With A Banker Is Of Mutual Trust”

The dismissed employee challenged the action, asserting that the absence of a regular inquiry rendered the order invalid. He relied on the High Court’s direction seeking a fresh inquiry. The authorities maintained that the forged certificate, verified through original records produced before the Court, formed the basis of the appointment and remained unrefuted. They argued that no statutory provision required a full inquiry when the foundational fact of forgery stood conclusively established.

The Court recorded that the respondent’s appointment was fundamentally impacted by the finding that the educational qualification submitted at the time of recruitment was not genuine. It noted that the authorities had produced the original certificate as well as the communication from the issuing body confirming its falsity. The Bench stated that the respondent had provided “absolutely, no rebuttal…that the certificate/degree presented by him…is genuine” . After allowing counsel for the respondent to examine the original records, the Court observed that the material left “no doubt that such fact cannot be controverted”.

The Bench recorded that the nature of the misconduct directly affected the legitimacy of the respondent’s entry into a uniformed service. It observed that “once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country… the act of the respondent is uncondonable.” It further stated that the fact that the appointment itself was obtained through falsification was decisive in evaluating the legality of the dismissal.

The Court also addressed the High Court’s direction requiring a departmental inquiry. It noted that the absence of a full inquiry did not, in the circumstances of the case, invalidate the dismissal order. The Bench recorded that “no holding of a departmental inquiry in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case may not be a factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from service”. It found that the documentary evidence produced by the authorities, including the verification from the issuing institution, conclusively established the foundational allegation.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Allows MTNL’s Section 37 Appeal, Revives 17-Year Telecom Equipment Dispute With Motorola Over USD 8.7 Million Arbitral Award

Based on its examination of the record, the Court stated that “the orders passed by the CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable”. It held that once the core allegation of forgery stood proven and remained unrebutted, there was no legal basis to disturb the disciplinary authority’s decision.

The Court stated: “the appeal is allowed and the order of the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set aside. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent by the concerned appellants stands restored, No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. (N/P); Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.; Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv.; Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv.; Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.; Mr. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Adv.; Mr. Harkesh Prashar, Adv.; Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR.

Case Title: Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24705 of 2023)
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra