No Sympathy Or Compassion For Employees Submitting Forged Documents To Employer: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer have to be dealt with in a strict manner. It said such persons are certainly unfit to be employed and no sympathy or compassion can be shown to such an employee.

The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while upholding the termination order of a woman who was dismissed from services by the Bihar Bhavan for submitting a forged class 8th pass certificate.

The court noted that there was a clear finding made by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner Kiran Thakur that she had failed to prove the authenticity of the Class 8th pass certificate submitted by her.

Dismissing the writ petition filed against the termination order, the court said that when the charge of submitting forged and fabricated documents stands proved, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be faulted with.

Thakur was given compassionate appointment in Bihar Bhawan, after the death of her husband, who was working as driver with the Bihar Bhawan. In 2009, a Show Cause Notice was issued to her on the allegation that she was creating nuisance under the influence of alcohol, causing inconvenience and disturbance to others residing in the Bhawan. Subsequently, she was suspended from service.

Later, in the course of the preliminary inquiry conducted against Thakur, it came to the fore that the certificate submitted by her in support of her qualification as Class 8th pass, was a forged document.

In the departmental proceedings initiated against her on the allegations of submission of forged document, the Inquiry Officer held that Thakur had failed to prove that her educational certificate was authentic. She was subsequently dismissed from service in 2014.

In the writ petition filed against the termination order, Thakur said she was not served with any charge sheet and the Principles of Natural Justice were not followed. She contended that she was removed unceremoniously without following any process or procedure.

Per contra, Bihar Bhavan claimed that Thakur was dismissed after following a due procedure by carrying out the departmental proceedings, in which full opportunity was granted to her to defend her case.

The court observed that petitioner had put up a totally false case before it that she did not participate in the departmental proceedings or that she was unaware of any departmental proceedings, till she received the termination letter.

“The documents placed on record on behalf of the respondent clearly show that the petitioner was fully aware of the departmental proceedings against her and that she fully participated in the same,” said the court.

The court added: “There is a clear finding by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the certificate of passing Class 8th, as submitted by her, was a genuine document.”

The court dismissed the contention raised by Thakur that passing Class 8th was not a pre-requisite for compassionate appointment in the relevant job at the material time.

“The fact remains that the petitioner submitted a forged document in support of her educational qualification at the time of seeking compassionate appointment,” the court said, noting that the Supreme Court in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Rajendra D Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486 has categorically held that whether a forged certificate is material or not, or had any bearing on the employment, is immaterial.

While holding that Thakur was guilty of suppression of material facts and documents even from the court, the bench remarked, “Employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer, have to be dealt with in a strict manner. If a person submits forged and fabricated documents, then such a person is certainly unfit to be employed. No sympathy or compassion can be shown to such an employee. Thus, when the charge against the petitioner stands proved, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the respondent cannot be faulted with.”

The court thus dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kiran Thakur vs Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhavan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 428

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Anupama Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Mr. Manish Kumar, Ms. Shaswati Parhi

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment