Government Employee Submitting Fake Medical Certificates To Cover Unauthorised Absence Commits Grave Misconduct Justifying Dismissal: Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order that had directed reconsideration of a lesser penalty and restored the dismissal of a government employee from service for furnishing false medical certificates to justify prolonged unauthorised absence. The Court held that submitting unreliable or fabricated medical and fitness certificates, along with false statements to regularise absence, constitutes grave misconduct reflecting lack of integrity and breach of trust expected of a public servant.
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government employee serving under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The employee had remained absent from duty without authorisation for a continuous period of nearly three years and, upon rejoining service, submitted medical and fitness certificates purportedly issued by a government health dispensary doctor to justify the absence. On verification by the competent health authorities, it emerged that the certificates had not been issued by the concerned dispensary, lacked mandatory features such as serial numbers, and that the named doctor was not on duty on the relevant dates and had retired prior to issuing a subsequent confirmation certificate.
Based on these facts, charge memoranda were issued alleging unauthorised absence, submission of false medical documents, and making incorrect statements amounting to misconduct under the applicable conduct rules. A departmental inquiry was conducted in which documentary evidence was examined and the employee was afforded full opportunity of defence. The Inquiry Officer returned findings holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, which was upheld in appeal and revision.
The employee thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the disciplinary action on the ground that forgery had not been proved through expert opinion and no criminal prosecution had been initiated. This order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court.
The Court examined the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and recorded that “judicial review is concerned not with the correctness of the decision, but with the decision-making process.” It observed that “the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be re-appreciated by the court in exercise of judicial review.”
On the Tribunal’s approach, the Court stated that “the learned Tribunal has proceeded on an erroneous assumption by applying the standard of proof applicable to criminal proceedings.” It recorded that “in departmental proceedings, the charges are required to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.”
With respect to the medical certificates, the Court observed that “verification established that the certificates were not issued by the concerned government dispensary and the doctor whose name appeared thereon was not on duty on the relevant dates.” It further recorded that “the certificates did not bear serial numbers or beneficiary details which were mandatory features of official medical certificate books.”
The Court noted that “apart from the disputed certificates, no contemporaneous medical records such as prescriptions, OPD slips or treatment papers were produced to substantiate the claim of prolonged illness.” On the false statement regarding the doctor’s status, it recorded that “the assertion that the doctor continued to be a sitting medical officer was demonstrably incorrect as he had retired prior to the relevant date.”
On proportionality of punishment, the Court stated that “submission of false medical documents to regularise unauthorised absence reflects deliberate dishonesty and lack of integrity, which goes to the root of public service.” It observed that “the Tribunal failed to record how the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference.”
The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 is set aside. The order of dismissal dated 18.06.2010, as upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, is restored. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is allowed. The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. S. S. Hooda, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu, Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Nauriya, Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
Case Title: Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:847-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7831/2024
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Amit Mahajan
