When Issuing Authority Verifies Experience Certificate, Counter-Signing Authority's Denial Won't Lead To Termination Sans Enquiry: Jammu & Kashmir HC

The observations were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while deciding a bunch of petitions in terms of which the petitioners had challenged their order of termination issued by the Chief Engineer Project beacon C/O 56 APO.

In the instant case the petitioner got appointed to the post of Nursing Assistant however post the selection process, a verification process was initiated by the appointing authority in order to determine the genuineness of the documents submitted by the selected candidates.

Subsequently , it came to fore that the experience certificate of the petitioner was alleged to be forged and as a consequence of which, a Notice of termination came to be issued on September 26th 2009 against the petitioner by the Chief Engineer, Beacon.

On October 14th, 2009 a reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner and on the basis of recommendations on October 23 2009, the notice of termination was withdrawn in respect of petitioner, for the purpose of directing further enquiry with respect to the same.

On further enquiry the verification certificate was endorsed by Mahajan Hospital in respect of petitioner and it was verified by them that the petitioner had gained the requisite experience in their hospital and the certificate was genuine. However, on May 30th 2011, another order of termination was passed against the petitioner No. 1, whereby, he was given one month notice for termination of his services on 30th June 2011.

Challenging his order of termination the petitioner submitted that he responded to his first termination order through proper channel and clarified the position that the experience certificate furnished by him is not forged but true and correct one and before appointment of the petitioner has a working experience as a Nursing Assistant with the Mahajan Hospital Salapur Maharashtra.

The petitioners further argued that they have not furnished or made any declaration which is false or suppressed any material fact.

Contesting the plea, the respondents vehemently argued that the point which has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the relevancy of experience certificate, is false and that the genuineness of experience certificate is in question, as the same has been intimated as “FORGED” by the concerned authority (Counter Signing Authority).

Respondents further submitted that after recruitment of candidates for the appropriate posts, GREF Centre (Recruiting Centre), verifies the genuineness of the certificates produced by the candidates. Accordingly, the experience certificate was verified by GREF Centre from District Health Officer, Health Deptt. Zilla Parishad, Slapur and the District Health Officer, Health Deptt. Zilla Parishad Solapur has intimated vide letter No. ZPS/Health/PUB/196/09 dated 09 July 2009, that their office has not countersigned or issued the said certificate to petitioner, respondents averred.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Nargal observed that a counter signature is an additional signature added to a document that has already been signed and the counter signature serves to provide reconfirmation of the document’s authenticity.

Pointing out to the contradictions, the court said that the hospital authorities who have first-hand knowledge of the fact that the petitioner has worked with them are validating and verifying the same, however, the countersigning authority is denying the same on the ground that the said authority has not countersigned the experience certificate and the same is forged by the petitioner.

"Even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken to its logical conclusion, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the documents already stand proved and verified to the extent of signing as well as verified by the issuing authority", the bench recorded.

Pointing out to the fact that the initial termination order and the final order were based on the same order of denial by of District Health Officer the court said that the only communication post the withdrawal for further investigation, was that of hospital, wherein the said hospital authorities have confirmed about the authenticity and validity of the experience certificate, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the investigation conducted by the respondents is in favor of petitioner No.1 and thus, there was no justification on part of the respondents to issue the second termination order on the same grounds.

Rejecting the argument of the respondent that the signature of DHO has been denied and is alleged to be forged the court said that it must be borne in mind that a mere denial will not suffice the purpose in absence of any enquiry or finding recorded by the respondents.

"The bar of proving forgery is high and must be supported by sufficient evidence and in absence of any detailed enquiry conducted in this regard, it cannot be assumed that the documents has been forged by the petitioner No.1", the bench explained.

Observing that the validity of the certificate has not been denied by the issuing authority, the court maintained that it is only the counter signature which is denied by the respondents and mere denial of counter signature on a certificate in absence of proper enquiry or finding recorded in this regard does not warrant major punishment of termination of service.

Elaborating further on the matter Justice Nargal observed that the allegations leveled against the petitioner No.1 were never enquired into by conducting a detailed enquiry or associating the petitioner by providing him an opportunity of being heard and in absence of that, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner is guilty of producing forged document which can be basis for passing the order of termination.

Finding the order of termination disproportionate to the attributed misconduct and the court said the same necessarily warrants the interference of the Court. Accordingly the bench allowed the petition and the impugned notice was quashed to the extent of petitioner No.1 only. The respondents were further directed to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Nursing Assistant without any hindrance.

Case Title: Rokade Santosh Sandashiv & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

Coram: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr Ashraf Wani

Counsel For Respondent: Mr T. M. Shami DSGI

Click Here To Read/Download Order