Dismissal based on alleged fake educational certificates is unsustainable without producing original documents or verification from the issuing authority.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sorting Assistant in the respondent Department in 1995 and later promoted to Inspector of Posts in 2012.

In 2013, eighteen years after his initial appointment, the Department issued a charge-sheet alleging that he had obtained the job using a fake Intermediate Certificate from Bihar.

The Inquiry Officer (IO) concluded the charge was proved, relying on a 1997 letter from the Bihar Intermediate Education Council stating the certificate was non-existent. Notably, the original alleged fake certificate was never produced during the inquiry.

The petitioner was dismissed on February 11, 2015, a decision subsequently upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner challenged these orders via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on acceptable evidence or were vitiated by the non-production of the primary document (the alleged fake certificate).

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to exercise due circumspection in reviewing the dismissal of an employee with 18 years of service.

The court applied the principle of judicial review in departmental proceedings, which mandates that findings of fact by an Inquiry Officer should not be interfered with unless they are based on "no evidence" or are perverse.

The court emphasized the "best evidence rule," noting that the principal document alleged to be fraudulent must be produced or verified.

The court considered the relevance of "essential qualifications," noting that if an employee possesses a higher degree (B.A.) for which the disputed qualification (Intermediate) was a prerequisite, it supports the presumption of the validity of the prior qualification.

The court found that the entire disciplinary action was based on "no evidence".

It noted that the Department never produced the original "fake" certificate during the inquiry, claiming the file was not readily available.

Crucially, the petitioner produced a genuine communication (DD-1) from the Bihar Council and a marks statement confirming his Roll No. 55432, which a departmental witness (SW-2) admitted was genuine during cross-examination.

The court observed that the Department had failed to even send the photocopy of the petitioner’s mark sheet to the Council for verification.

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s subsequent B.A. degree from Kurukshetra University further validated his Intermediate status, as the University would have verified the same during enrollment. Consequently, the IO's report was found to be totally vitiated.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with 50% arrears of salary (as agreed by the petitioner), treating the period out of service as a period under suspension for the purpose of maintaining continuity. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits of continuous service.