Summary
The Court set aside the dismissal of a court attender charged with unauthorised absence and with submitting a fabricated medical certificate. A thirteen-day delay in explaining was not unreasonable, and the forgery finding was perverse: the doctor admitted treating him, owning the letterhead and not disputing the rubber stamp, yet the Inquiry Officer neither compared the handwritten certificate with the doctor's admitted signatures nor sought a handwriting expert. The appellant was reinstated with full back wages.
Issues
- Whether the finding that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent and delayed his explanation (Charge I) was sustainable.
- Whether the finding that the medical certificate produced by the appellant was fabricated (Charge II) was based on credible evidence, or was perverse so as to warrant interference in judicial review.
- Whether the order of dismissal, upheld by the High Court, called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9(x), proviso, APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991The respondent argued that this proviso mandates dismissal in proved cases of forgery; the Court held the argument needed no consideration because the forgery charge itself was not established. (¶¶ 25, 36, 44)
- Rule 20, APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991The charges were framed for punishment under Rule 20, and under Rule 20(5)(d) the appellant was refused a lawyer but allowed the help of another government servant, as the Presenting Officer was not a legal practitioner; the Court did not decide any question on the procedure. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Held
- A delay of thirteen days in furnishing an explanation was not unreasonable; the remaining facets of the absence charge were bound up with the forgery charge. (¶ 28)
- The graver the charge, the greater the caution required. Where the doctor admitted that the appellant consulted him and received tablets, admitted the letterhead was his and did not dispute the rubber stamp, but denied issuing a fully handwritten certificate and could not give the consultation date, the Inquiry Officer could not simply prefer the doctor's word. He ought to have compared the disputed writing with the doctor's admitted signature and, if doubt remained, referred it to a handwriting expert. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 44)
- Reference to handwriting experts is not alien to disciplinary inquiries; relying on V.M. Saudagar and Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that where loss of livelihood is at stake there must be fair play and an investigation of the charge suited to the situation. Without verifying the disputed and undisputed signatures, the finding that the certificate was not genuine was perverse and based on no credible evidence. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- On examining the original inquiry file, the Court found the rubber stamp on the certificate identical to the doctor's stamp on his acknowledgment of the notice, and his admitted signatures only broadly similar to each other and to the disputed one. With nothing conclusive either way, the forgery charge was held not proved. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40)
- The Court noted further peculiarities: pay for the absence had already been deducted, the Presiding Officer had orally let the matter rest, the issue was revived only after a later absence not shown to be unauthorised, and the doctor's first statement was recorded behind the appellant's back. It did not rule on the validity of that procedure. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- Although judicial review of disciplinary orders is limited, courts may interfere where findings rest on no evidence, are perverse, or could not be reached by a reasonable person. Since the charges were not established, an earlier penalty in the appellant's service record and the mandatory-dismissal rule had no bearing. (¶¶ 43, 44)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment, the dismissal order and the appellate order set aside; appellant to be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits including full arrears of salary, within three weeks; no costs.