Dismissal for submitting forged certificates was disproportionate, requiring reconsideration of a lesser punishment.

The petitioners were working as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff on a daily-wage basis in different branches of the Central Bank of India. Pursuant to the Bank’s one-time recruitment notice dated 14 August 2012, they participated in the selection process for regular appointment to the posts of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff/Sub Staff and were appointed after being found eligible and suitable.

At the time of joining, the petitioners submitted school certificates in support of their age and educational qualification. Upon subsequent verification, the concerned schools reportedly informed the Bank that the certificates had not been issued by them. Disciplinary proceedings were accordingly initiated under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10 April 2002.

The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. After considering the petitioners’ replies to the show-cause notices, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal. Their departmental appeals were rejected by the appellate authority.

The petitioners challenged the dismissal and appellate orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, principally contending that dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, particularly considering their status, educational background and prior engagement as daily-wage workers.

The Court applied the disciplinary framework contained in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10 April 2002, under which submission of forged certificates constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

It considered the doctrine that fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation vitiates solemn acts, relying on Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. M/s Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd., Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdhari Lal Yadav and Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapur Project Ltd.

However, on the quantum of punishment, the Court applied the proportionality principle stated in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, namely that punishment must suit both the offence and the offender and must not be unduly harsh or so disproportionate as to shock the conscience.

It also relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and State of Gujarat v. Anand Acharya for the proposition that, where punishment is shockingly disproportionate, a constitutional court may direct reconsideration of the penalty or, in appropriate cases, substitute a lesser punishment.

The Court accepted that the petitioners had submitted certificates which, upon verification, were found to be forged and that the disciplinary authorities had followed the applicable procedure, including an enquiry, show-cause proceedings and appellate consideration.

Nevertheless, it distinguished the question of establishment of misconduct from the question of the appropriate penalty.

The petitioners had originally been engaged as daily-wage Safai Karmacharis and had obtained regular appointment through the Bank’s special one-time recruitment process. Considering their status, educational background and the loss of livelihood caused by dismissal, the Court held that dismissal was not commensurate with the misconduct, notwithstanding that the submission of forged certificates constituted misconduct.

Following the proportionality approach in Ranjit Thakur and the reasoning of the Telangana High Court in materially similar cases, the Court concluded that a lesser punishment should be considered by the appellate authority.

The dismissal orders and the appellate orders were accordingly quashed for the present.

The matters were remitted to the Regional Manager/appellate authority of the Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, to impose an appropriate punishment other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, subject to consideration of the relevant circumstances and implementation of the Telangana High Court order relied upon by the petitioners.

All the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.