False Medical Certificates in Departmental Inquiries: No Criminal Prosecution/Expert Opinion Requirement; CAT’s Review Limited to Process, Not Merits

Introduction

In COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA & ANR. v. MANOJ KUMAR (Delhi High Court, decided on 03-02-2026), the Court examined the legality of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (“CAT”) interference with a dismissal imposed on a government employee for prolonged unauthorised absence and submission of allegedly false medical/fitness certificates.

The petitioners (Comptroller and Auditor General of India and an allied authority) challenged CAT’s order dated 29.05.2023, which had quashed charge-memos and directed the department to impose a punishment lesser than dismissal. The respondent, a former employee, had remained absent without authorisation for nearly three years (04.09.2000 to 29.04.2003) and sought to justify/regularise the absence using certificates purportedly issued by a CGHS doctor.

Key Issues

• Whether CAT exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review by effectively re-assessing proof and insisting on criminal-law standards (expert opinion/criminal case) for departmental misconduct.
• Whether submission of unreliable/false medical documentation and false statements to regularise prolonged absence constitutes grave misconduct justifying dismissal.
• Whether departmental findings based on official verifications and surrounding circumstances can sustain the charge on a “preponderance of probabilities”.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court set aside CAT’s order and restored the dismissal order dated 18.06.2010 (as upheld in appeal and revision). The Court held that:

• CAT wrongly imported criminal-law requirements into departmental proceedings by suggesting “forgery” cannot be proved without expert opinion and without launching a criminal case.
• The misconduct was proved on the departmental standard of preponderance of probabilities through documentary verification and circumstantial indicators (non-issuance from CGHS, the doctor being absent on relevant dates, missing serial/token numbers, lack of contemporaneous medical records, and false statements about the doctor’s service status).
• The penalty of dismissal did not “shock the conscience” and was not disproportionate given the gravity and the integrity-related nature of the misconduct.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1) Core framework: limited judicial review in disciplinary matters

The Court anchored its analysis in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 749, treating it as the controlling authority on:

• Judicial review vs. appeal: courts/tribunals review the decision-making process, not the correctness of conclusions on facts.
• “Some evidence” test: if findings are supported by some evidence and are not perverse, interference is unwarranted.
• Punishment review: substitution of penalty is exceptional; interference is justified only if the punishment “shocks the conscience”.

In quoting B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the judgment also references the lineage of supporting authorities (as cited within that extract), reinforcing the discipline-specific restraint expected from reviewing forums:

• Union Of India v. H.C Goel . (perversity/no evidence as a ground for certiorari)
• Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (tribunal not an appellate authority to substitute judgment)
• Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora (tribunal cannot substitute role of competent authorities)
• State Bank Of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow (no re-appreciation of evidence in judicial review)
• State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (penalty primarily within punishing authority’s domain)
• Union Of India v. Sardar Bahadur . (reiteration of restraint in penalty review)
• Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. (interference where finding is utterly perverse)
• Rangaswami v. State Of Tamil Nadu .. (tribunal cannot substitute discretion on penalty)

2) False/fabricated documents as integrity-based grave misconduct

To assess the gravity of producing unreliable/false certificates and the propriety of dismissal, the Court relied upon:

• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar ., (2022) 17 SCC 361: production of fabricated/false certificates is a “question of TRUST”; the materiality of the certificate or mens rea is not determinative—submission itself undermines employability and justifies dismissal. The judgment uses this to support non-interference with dismissal for document-related dishonesty.
• Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363: fraud/misrepresentation vitiates outcomes; courts should not perpetuate advantages obtained through dishonesty (“fraud avoids all judicial acts”).
• Kiran Thakur v. Resident Commr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2912: employees submitting forged documents are “unfit to be employed”; no sympathy/compassion; dismissal is warranted where the charge is proved.

3) Unauthorised absence + self-serving/belated medical certificates

On the evidentiary worth of medical certificates unsupported by contemporaneous medical records, particularly in cases of long absence, the Court relied upon:

• State of Odisha & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, Civil Appeal No. 9514 of 2019 (decided on 10 January 2020): “certificate of convenience” without contemporaneous treatment records should not dilute misconduct; proportionality doctrine may not apply to such facts; courts should not interfere solely on self-serving medical certificates.

4) CAT’s own cited proportionality cases (and how the High Court implicitly distinguishes them)

CAT relied on B. C. Chaturvedi v. UOI & Others and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others, v. Ananta Saha and Others to justify directing a lesser penalty. The High Court held CAT’s approach to be flawed because it:

• did not identify perversity/no evidence/natural justice breach;
• did not explain how the dismissal “shocked the conscience”; and
• improperly demanded criminal prosecution/expert evidence—requirements not mandated in departmental adjudication.

Legal Reasoning

A) Departmental standard of proof: “preponderance of probabilities”

The Court held that CAT’s insistence on expert opinion and criminal prosecution effectively imposed a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. In disciplinary proceedings, strict Evidence Act rules and criminal standards do not apply; what is required is whether the conclusion is supported by “some evidence” and is reasonable on probabilities.

B) The charge was not a criminal “forgery” trial; it was misconduct under Conduct Rules

The Court emphasised that the departmental case was about submitting false/unreliable medical and fitness certificates and making false statements to regularise prolonged unauthorised absence—misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i) (absolute integrity) and Rule 3(1)(iii) (conduct unbecoming) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, the departmental authority could act on verified inconsistencies and institutional confirmations without converting the inquiry into a criminal forgery adjudication.

C) Why the finding of falsity/unreliability was sustained on evidence

The Court treated the following as cumulatively sufficient to uphold the inquiry findings and disciplinary conclusion:

• Extraordinary unauthorised absence: nearly three years without contemporaneous leave application.
• Institutional verification: CGHS authorities stated the certificates were not issued from the concerned CGHS dispensary.
• Doctor’s duty status: Dr. T.P. Singh was confirmed absent on the certificate dates (29.04.2003, 30.04.2003), making issuance in official capacity implausible.
• Formal defects: missing serial numbers and beneficiary token numbers, which were stated to be typical of CGHS certificate books.
• Allotted dispensary mismatch: respondent’s CGHS dispensary was Gurgaon, yet certificates were shown from Sunder Vihar without the normal referral/emergency justification.
• No contemporaneous medical trail: no prescriptions, OPD slips, treatment records, bills, or other corroboration of prolonged TB treatment.
• Independent falsity: the respondent’s statement that Dr. T.P. Singh was still a sitting CMO in 2006 was false (retired in 2005 on invalid pension under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972).

D) Proportionality: dismissal justified; CAT could not mandate a lesser punishment

The High Court found that the misconduct implicated integrity and trust, not merely attendance. Given the combination of prolonged unauthorised absence and deliberate reliance on unreliable/false documentation and statements, dismissal was not disproportionate and did not shock the conscience. CAT’s direction to impose a lesser penalty was therefore beyond its permissible remit under the judicial review framework stated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.

Impact

• Reaffirmation of disciplinary autonomy: The decision strengthens departmental discretion in integrity-related misconduct and reinforces that tribunals cannot act as appellate forums reweighing evidence.
• Clarity on “expert opinion/criminal case” objections: The judgment signals that departments need not initiate criminal prosecution or obtain handwriting/forensic expert opinions in every document-falsity scenario if institutional verifications and circumstances reasonably establish falsity/unreliability on probabilities.
• Higher evidentiary expectations from employees claiming long medical absence: Employees relying on medical grounds for extended absence should maintain contemporaneous treatment records; belated certificates without supporting material will attract adverse inference (aligned with State of Odisha & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo).
• Integrity as a decisive factor in penalty review: Following Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar ., document-related dishonesty is treated as a “trust deficit” misconduct where dismissal will often be upheld.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Preponderance of probabilities: The disciplinary standard—whether it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred (not “beyond reasonable doubt”).
• Judicial review vs. appeal: A court/tribunal checks fairness, legality, and presence of some evidence; it does not redo the fact-finding like an appellate court.
• “Some evidence” rule: If there is relevant material supporting the conclusion (even if another view is possible), the finding is usually not disturbed.
• Shocks the conscience: A very high threshold; punishment must be outrageously disproportionate before a court interferes.
• Dies-non: A period treated as “no duty”—it does not count for pay/allowances (and often has service consequences), applied here to the unauthorised absence period.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling establishes a clear and practical principle for service jurisprudence: departmental findings that an employee submitted unreliable/false medical documentation and false statements can be sustained on the “preponderance of probabilities” without requiring criminal prosecution or expert opinion, and tribunals must remain within the narrow boundaries of judicial review laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.

By restoring dismissal, the Court underscores that integrity-based misconduct—especially involving attempts to legitimise prolonged unauthorised absence through questionable medical certificates—strikes at the heart of public service trust, warranting strict disciplinary outcomes and minimal judicial interference absent perversity or procedural illegality.