Falsification of medical records to cover unauthorized absence constitutes professional misconduct justifying disciplinary penalty.

The applicant, a retired Medical Officer of Bokaro General Hospital (SAIL), was charged with misconduct for issuing a fake Medical Fitness Certificate to an employee, Karamat Roy, on 23.05.2003.

The certificate purportedly covered a period of outside treatment (21.05.2003 to 22.05.2003) but used a pre-printed form stating the patient was "under my treatment at Bokaro General Hospital" without the necessary deletions.

The applicant was placed under suspension on 14.08.2003 and served a charge sheet alleging violations of Clauses 4.1(1)(i), 4.0(1)(ii), 5.0(1), 5.0(5), and 5.0(20) of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1977.

Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority reduced the applicant's pay to the minimum of the E-5 grade.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the finding of guilt but reduced the quantum of punishment on 08.08.2006.

The applicant initially approached the Jharkhand High Court, which dismissed the writ petition for lack of jurisdiction in 2011, eventually leading the applicant to file this Original Application (OA) before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation given the two-decade delay since the cause of action.

2. Whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the cross-examination of witnesses and assistance of a defense representative.

3. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were arbitrary, prejudicial, or lacked evidentiary support.

The court primarily applied the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1977, which govern the standards of integrity and the procedural requirements for disciplinary proceedings against employees.

It also applied the principles of Natural Justice, requiring a fair opportunity for the delinquent officer to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense.

Regarding the delay, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under the Limitation Act, considering the status of the applicant as a senior citizen and his pursuit of alternative remedies in the High Court as grounds for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural history, condoning the delay because the applicant had been litigating the matter in the High Court and was a senior citizen.

On the merits, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of natural justice violations.

It noted that contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the inquiry record explicitly showed that witness Dr. M. Lal had been cross-examined via 56 questions over two days by the applicant's defense assistant.

Regarding the charge of misconduct, the Tribunal found that the Inquiry Committee had identified a suspicious pattern where the applicant had issued certificates diagnosing "OSTITIS" in over 40 cases between July 2002 and March 2003.

The evidence suggested these certificates were issued to cover unauthorized absences during a strike period rather than for genuine medical reasons.

The Tribunal concluded that the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and Appellate Authority had all exercised due diligence and applied their minds to the documentary evidence, which established that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity.

It ruled that the inquiry was conducted fairly, the findings were based on substantial evidence of a pattern of casual and dishonest conduct, and the principles of natural justice were fully observed.

The MA for condonation of delay was allowed, but the OA seeking to quash the penalty orders was dismissed.

No order was made as to costs.