Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Forged Certificate: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (21 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 398

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can an employer dismiss an employee for submitting a forged educational certificate, even if the qualification was not strictly required for the job? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the importance of trust in the employer-employee relationship. The Court overturned a High Court decision that had ordered reinstatement of an employee who had submitted a fake certificate, holding that the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss the employee was justified. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 1982, Shri Rajendra D. Harmalkar was initially employed as a casual worker with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). Later, he applied for the position of Refueling Helper, stating that he had passed his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) from the Karnataka Secondary Education Board in April 1986. He submitted a copy of his SSLC with Registration No. 206271 dated 19.05.1986. Subsequently, he was regularized as a Helper.

In 2003, the Chief Vigilance Officer of IOCL received a complaint alleging that Mr. Harmalkar had secured his job by submitting a false SSLC certificate. The police were also notified. Despite repeated requests, Mr. Harmalkar failed to submit the original SSLC, claiming it was misplaced. He also did not provide a duplicate certificate.

IOCL then contacted the Karnataka Secondary Education Board, which confirmed that the SSLC with Registration No. 206271 belonged to one Agrahar Jayant, not Mr. Harmalkar. Following this discovery, a departmental inquiry was initiated against Mr. Harmalkar.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A departmental inquiry was initiated against Mr. Harmalkar, and he was served with a charge sheet containing two charges: (1) willful insubordination and (2) giving false information regarding qualifications at the time of employment. The Inquiry Officer found both charges to be proved and recommended dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority, agreeing with the findings, dismissed Mr. Harmalkar from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal.

Mr. Harmalkar was also prosecuted in a criminal court but was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, mainly because the original SSLC was not produced in court.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, Mr. Harmalkar filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa. He argued that he admitted his guilt on the assurance of a lenient view and that there was no minimum educational qualification required for the job. The High Court partly allowed the petition, directing his reinstatement without back wages, concluding that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the principles of disciplinary proceedings and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The charges against Mr. Harmalkar were based on misconduct related to:

• Wilful insubordination or disobedience of a lawful order.
• Giving false information regarding qualifications at the time of employment.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in previous cases regarding the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary matters and the extent to which High Courts can interfere with the decisions of disciplinary authorities.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision. The submission of a false SSLC is a grave misconduct, justifying dismissal.

  • The High Court should not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, as the employee had produced a false and forged SSLC.
  • The Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal given the gravity of the misconduct.

• The grounds on which the High Court interfered were irrelevant:

  • The employee’s admission of guilt was not made with any assurance of leniency, and there was no evidence of such assurance.
  • The acquittal by the Criminal Court was based on a benefit of doubt, not an honorable acquittal.
  • Whether a minimum qualification was prescribed for the job is immaterial; the act of submitting a forged certificate is a breach of trust.

• The employer-employee relationship is based on trust, which was violated by the employee submitting a forged document.

  • The employer loses trust and confidence in an employee who submits a forged certificate.

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  • The High Court should only interfere if there is a procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings or if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

• Denying back wages is not a sufficient punishment, as the employee was working elsewhere during the dismissal period.

  • The employee was working with Reliance Industries during the period of dismissal, so denying back wages is not a real punishment.

• Relied on Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388, and Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 to argue that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.

Respondent’s (Shri Rajendra D. Harmalkar) Arguments:

• The forged SSLC had no relevance for securing the job, as there was no minimum qualification required. It was produced only for record purposes.

  • The forged SSLC was not material for securing the job, as there was no minimum qualification or age limit prescribed.
  • The certificate was produced only for record purposes.

• The employee admitted guilt on the assurance that a lenient view would be taken.

  • The employee admitted to producing the forged certificate based on an assurance that a lenient view would be taken during punishment.

• The employee was acquitted by the Criminal Court for offenses under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

  • The employee was acquitted by the Criminal Court for offenses related to the forged SSLC.

• The employee had an unblemished service record.

  • The employee had a good and unblemished service record.

• The High Court’s decision to reinstate the employee without back wages should not be interfered with.

  • Given the overall facts and circumstances, the High Court’s order for reinstatement without back wages should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the gravity of the misconduct and the breach of trust involved in submitting a forged educational certificate. The Court emphasized that the employer-employee relationship is based on trust and that an employee who submits a fake document cannot be trusted. The Court also noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision without sufficient justification. The Court considered the fact that the employee had not been honest in his conduct and had tried to evade submitting the original certificate.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision. The Court emphasized that submitting a forged certificate is a grave misconduct and a breach of trust. The Court stated that:

“Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer?”

The Court also noted that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

“As per the settled position of law, unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which as such is a prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority as observed hereinabove.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the employee had admitted his guilt on the assurance of a lenient view, stating that there was no evidence to support this claim. The Court further held that the acquittal by the criminal court was based on a benefit of doubt and was immaterial, as the employee had admitted to producing the forged certificate.

“Apart from the fact that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving benefit of doubt and there was no honourable acquittal, in the present case before the Disciplinary Authority the original writ petitioner as such admitted that he produced the fake and forged certificate. Therefore, once there was an admission on the part of the respondent – original writ petitioner, thereafter whether he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court is immaterial.”

The Court concluded that the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, and the High Court should not have interfered with this decision.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Submitting a forged educational certificate is considered a grave misconduct, which can lead to dismissal from service.
• The employer-employee relationship is based on trust, and any breach of this trust, such as submitting a fake document, can have serious consequences.
• High Courts should exercise restraint while interfering with the decisions of disciplinary authorities, especially in matters of punishment.
• The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited, and High Courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or there is a procedural irregularity.
• An acquittal by a criminal court based on a benefit of doubt does not automatically absolve an employee of misconduct in a departmental inquiry.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and order, restoring the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the original writ petitioner from service.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that submitting a forged educational certificate is a grave misconduct that justifies dismissal, and High Courts should not interfere with disciplinary authorities’ decisions unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or there is a procedural irregularity. This case reinforces the importance of trust in the employer-employee relationship and clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Rajendra D. Harmalkar underscores the significance of integrity and trust in the employer-employee relationship. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that submitting forged documents constitutes a serious breach of trust, justifying the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss the employee. The judgment also clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, emphasizing that High Courts should not interfere with disciplinary decisions unless there are compelling reasons, such as procedural irregularities or shockingly disproportionate punishments.