Forged Certificate Invalidates Appointment | Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal Of BMTC Driver
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi held that dismissal from service on grounds of fraudulent procurement of employment through a forged educational certificate does not warrant interference. The Bench dismissed the appeal challenging a Single Judge’s decision and upheld the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation’s action of terminating employment. The court directed that reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court was untenable and that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was legally valid.
The litigation arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) against an employee appointed as a Badli driver on 29 August 1988. At the time of recruitment, the employee produced a Transfer Certificate (No. 18/85-86) purporting that he had completed schooling up to Standard IX. Later investigation revealed that he had studied only up to Standard I. Since the minimum educational qualification for the post was completion of Standard IV, the certificate was found to be false and forged.
On 30 June 2001, BMTC issued Articles of Charge against the employee, alleging misconduct for securing appointment through false educational credentials. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who examined both the Security Officer and the Head Mistress of Yerappanahalli Government Higher Primary School. Their testimony confirmed that the Transfer Certificate submitted was fabricated. The Enquiry Officer held the charge of misconduct as proved. A copy of the enquiry report was provided to the employee, who was invited to respond. After considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and dismissed him from service on 27 July 2005.
The employee raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The BMTC contested the reference, while the employee claimed that the enquiry was not fair or proper. The Labour Court, by its award dated 18 March 2016 (Reference No. 15/2010), set aside the dismissal order. It directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages, and imposed a penalty of reducing three annual increments cumulatively.
The operative part of the award ordered BMTC to reinstate the workman within one month from publication of the award, without back wages, but with continuity of service. It further directed reduction of three increments, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and directed the Government to publish the award and notify the parties accordingly.
BMTC challenged this award through Writ Petition No. 9752/2012. The High Court noted that the Head Mistress of the concerned school had indeed been examined during the domestic enquiry, contrary to the Labour Court’s assumption. Finding the Labour Court had misdirected itself by overlooking the original records, the High Court, by order dated 23 November 2015, remitted the dispute back to the Labour Court for reconsideration.
Upon remand, the Labour Court framed three issues:
- Whether the industrial dispute raised after four years of dismissal was justified.
- Whether BMTC was justified in denying gratuity on the ground of submission of false certificate.
- Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.
The Labour Court answered the first issue in favour of the workman, holding there was reasonable ground for delay. It upheld the finding that misconduct was proved but considered dismissal harsh. Accordingly, it reiterated its earlier direction for reinstatement without back wages, with continuity of service, and reduction of three increments.
BMTC again approached the High Court through Writ Petition No. 58582/2017. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition, setting aside the Labour Court’s award and upholding dismissal. The Single Judge reasoned that producing a forged certificate to secure employment directly affected eligibility and the punishment could not be termed disproportionate.
The employee filed Writ Appeal No. 1222 of 2024 challenging the Single Judge’s order. He contended that:
- Under Circular No. 537 dated 2 August 1983 issued by BMTC, services of employees should not be terminated for suppression of information if they had rendered long service after confirmation.
- Having served more than 17 years, his dismissal was unjustified.
- His case was covered by the Supreme Court decision in K.V.S. Ram v. BMTC (2015) 12 SCC 39.
The Division Bench examined each contention raised. The judges recorded that the 1983 Circular did not apply to cases involving forged eligibility documents. “A plain reading of the said circular indicates that it does not contemplate a case where an ineligible employee has secured his appointment by furnishing a forged document to satisfy his eligibility condition. But for the forged document produced by the appellant, certifying his educational qualifications, he would be ineligible for being appointed as a Badli driver.”
The Bench further recorded that the circular was limited to suppression of past service details and not to cases of fabricated educational certificates. “The said circular is for addressing cases where there is some suppression of information on the part of the employee or failure to disclose particulars of the past services. We concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge that the afore-mentioned Circular, would have no application to the facts of the present case and the learned Labour Court, had misread the same.”
On the proportionality of punishment, the Bench referred to settled principles: “Given the nature of the allegation against the appellant, we are unable to accept that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionately excessive or one that would shock the conscience of the Court.” The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372: “When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.”
Further, reliance was placed on Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 748: “When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.”
The Bench distinguished the decision in K.V.S. Ram v. BMTC. In that case, dismissal occurred after extraordinary delay in enquiry proceedings, lasting nearly 14 years. The Supreme Court intervened considering the delay, age of the workman, and comparative treatment of others. “In the present case, the Articles of Charge was issued to the appellant on 30.06.2001… The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and the services of the appellant were terminated on 27.07.2005. Thus, there was no delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry.”
Accordingly, the Bench concluded that the Single Judge had rightly upheld dismissal.
In its concluding portion, the Division Bench stated: “We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
By dismissing the intra-court appeal, the Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order which had set aside the Labour Court’s reinstatement directive. Consequently, the dismissal order dated 27 July 2005 passed by BMTC against the employee stands valid and enforceable. The judgment thereby quashed the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service earlier granted by the Labour Court. No order was made as to costs, and the appeal proceedings stood concluded with finality in favour of BMTC.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sri. Naik V.S., Advocate
Case Title: Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Malurappa
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:28717-DB
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1222 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C.M. Joshi
