The Delhi High Court expounded that employees who engage in the act of submitting forged documents to their employers should face strict and unwavering consequences. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna outlined that such individuals, by their deceitful actions, demonstrate their unsuitability for continued employment, and as a result, no sympathy or leniency should be extended to them
Brief Facts:
A Writ Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the impugned order issued by the Respondent, Bihar Bhawan, terminating the service of the petitioner.
Brief Background:
The petitioner had received a compassionate appointment at Bihar Bhawan in Group IV following the death of her husband, who worked as a driver there. However, during her service, she was issued a show cause notice, accusing her of creating disturbance and inconvenience for the neighboring families and guests by being loud and under the influence of alcohol day and night. The notice also alleged that she had threatened a staff car driver in the office room of the Assistant Manager.
Consequently, on the same date, she was suspended for misconduct and indiscipline, including misbehavior under the influence of alcohol, assault and abuse towards residential employees, and threatening the staff car driver. While under suspension, a preliminary inquiry revealed that the certificate the petitioner had submitted as proof of her qualification as an 8th-grade pass was forged.
Consequently, the petitioner was issued a letter, asking for her explanation regarding the submission of the forged educational certificate and her fraudulent acquisition of a government job. Departmental proceedings were initiated against her. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet with her reply.
Following the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking her to provide reasons why she should not receive the maximum punishment.
After considering the facts, circumstances, and various documents on record, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. Consequently, the writ petition was filed, challenging the termination order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that no charge sheet was served to her and that the principles of natural justice were not followed. Further, that she was removed from her position without any proper process or procedure. It was also argued that she only became aware of the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer after being dismissed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was asserted that the Petitioner intentionally concealed crucial facts and documents from the Court and falsely claimed to have learned about the disciplinary proceedings at a later stage.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the Petitioner has presented a completely false case to this Court, claiming that she did not participate in the departmental proceedings and was unaware of them until she received the termination letter. However, the respondent provided documents demonstrating the petitioner's full awareness and active participation in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner's argument that she was not served with a charge sheet was contradicted by the records, which show that she not only responded to the charge sheet but also replied to various show-cause notices issued to her at different stages.
The High Court highlighted that the petitioner had indeed presented a fabricated document to validate her educational qualifications during the application for a compassionate appointment. It was ruled that the pertinence of a forged certificate and its implications on employment are inconsequential. The revelation of such falsified information raises concerns regarding trustworthiness. Consequently, the petitioner was held accountable for concealing crucial facts and documents.
The Court further opined that the employees who submit forged documents to their employers must face strict consequences. Such individuals are unfit for employment, and no sympathy or leniency can be shown to them. Therefore, when the charges against the petitioner had been proven, the respondent's decision to dismiss her from service could not be criticised.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Kiran Thakur v Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil 1668 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. Ms. Anupama Sharma
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Abhinav Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar and Ms. Shaswati Parhi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
