2022 (4) TMI 1423 - SC - Indian Laws

Reinstatement of the original writ petitioner without any back wages and other benefits by substituting the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority - Wilful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another - Giving false information regarding one s age father s name qualifications or previous service at the time of employment - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT - In the present case the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate that too at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Acquittal of the writ petitioner by the Criminal Court for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC in respect of the same certificate - HELD THAT - The said contention is neither here nor there and is of no assistance to the original writ petitioner. Apart from the fact that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving benefit of doubt and there was no honourable acquittal in the present case before the Disciplinary Authority the original writ petitioner as such admitted that he produced the fake and forged certificate. Therefore once there was an admission on the part of the respondent original writ petitioner thereafter whether he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court is immaterial. As per the settled position of law unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which as such is a prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. It appears that the High Court has denied the back wages and other benefits and has ordered reinstatement on a concession given by the learned counsel on behalf of the original writ petitioner. However it is required to be noted that for the period between 2006 to 2017 i.e. during the pendency of the writ petition the respondent was working in the Petroleum Division of Reliance Industries - The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of dismissing the original writ petitioner from service and ordering reinstatement without back wages and other benefits is hereby quashed and set aside - the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the original writ petitioner from service on the misconduct proved is hereby restored - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2. Relevance of the forged SSLC certificate in obtaining employment.
3. Judicial review of disciplinary actions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Impact of acquittal by the Criminal Court on disciplinary proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority:
The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the original writ petitioner from service for producing a fabricated/fake SSLC. The High Court interfered with this decision, deeming the punishment disproportionate. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that producing a false certificate is a grave misconduct and a matter of trust. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal, as the trust between the employer and employee was breached. The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, asserting that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the Disciplinary Authority's decision.

2. Relevance of the forged SSLC certificate in obtaining employment:
The original writ petitioner argued that the forged SSLC certificate had no relevance for securing the job as there were no prescribed minimum qualifications or age limits. However, the Supreme Court found this argument immaterial, stressing that the act of submitting a fake certificate itself constitutes a serious misconduct. The Court noted that the petitioner’s conduct, including evading requests to produce the original certificate and failing to obtain a duplicate, indicated a mala fide intention.

3. Judicial review of disciplinary actions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. Citing precedents such as Om Kumar v. Union of India and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the Court held that interference is permissible only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or if there is a procedural irregularity. The High Court's decision to reinstate the petitioner without back wages was deemed an overreach of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court underscored that the quantum of punishment is primarily the domain of the Disciplinary Authority.

4. Impact of acquittal by the Criminal Court on disciplinary proceedings:
The original writ petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court due to a lack of evidence, specifically the absence of the original SSLC. The Supreme Court clarified that this acquittal, given the benefit of doubt, did not equate to an honorable acquittal and had no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner’s admission of guilt in producing a forged certificate was sufficient for the Disciplinary Authority to impose dismissal, irrespective of the criminal court’s decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Disciplinary Authority's decision to dismiss the original writ petitioner from service. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the disciplinary action, which was justified given the gravity of the misconduct. The appeal was allowed, and the original dismissal order was restored.

← Previous Next →