M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD v. SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR 679 He was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving benefit of doubt and there was no honourable acquittal – Once there was an admission on the part of the respondent thereafter whether he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court is immaterial – Unless and until it is found that punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was shockingly disproportionate and/or there was procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed – When a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court under Art.226 – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority – Service law. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. 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? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/ forged certificate. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 7.1][689-A-B]

#2. It was a case on behalf of the petitioner – original writ petitioner before the High Court that he pleaded guilty and admitted that he had submitted a forged and fake certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment will be imposed. However, except the bald statement, there is no further evidence on the same. Nothing was mentioned on record as to who gave him such an assurance. [Para 7.2][689-C-D] A B C D E F G H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.

#3. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioner that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC in respect of the same certificate is concerned, the said contention is neither here nor there and is of no assistance to the original writ petitioner. 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. [Para 7.4][689-H; 690-A-B]

#4. 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. [Para 7.5][690-D]

#5. In any case in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the charge and misconduct of producing the fake and false SSLC Certificate proved, when a conscious decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service, the same could not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the original writ petitioner from service on the misconduct proved is restored. [Paras 7.6 and 8][690-F-H; 691-B]