Justice Amrita Sinha noted that the power of judicial review cannot be stretched to such an extent as to always show sympathy to an errant employee.

Underscoring that the employer cannot retain an employee if he does not possess the basic qualification to get the job, the order noted that it is common practice in service jurisprudence that, any time after appointment, if it is detected that the document relied upon by the candidate is false, fake, or forged, then his service becomes liable to be terminated.

Case of forged document and termination

The petitioner, Santosh Sardar, joined the BSF as a constable (general duty) on February 28, 1989. Although a verification process began as early as 1992, conclusive evidence of forgery did not emerge until later due to repeated verification attempts and various legal challenges.

A criminal case was registered against him in 2002 under sections 458 (punishes lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested on March 11, 2002, and released on bail on April 26, 2002.

In 2021, a Petty Security Force Court (PFSC) proceeding was initiated against him on five charges, and found guilty of providing false information during enrolment. The court sentenced him to dismissal from service along with 15 months of rigorous imprisonment.

‘Documents relied upon by him could not be traced’

The court noted that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities to disprove the allegations levelled against him, which he failed to do, and on the contrary, he admitted his guilt and accepted that he failed in the secondary examination and was not in a position to reappear in the said examination.

Emphasising that he was aware of the fact that he was ineligible to get into service, the court added that the petitioner fraudulently forged his mark sheet and produced the same at the time of credential verification.

“As the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not found in the records of the authority, the petitioner was asked to provide originals of the same. On further verification of his educational certificates, the documents relied upon by him could not be traced. It is only then that the authority came to a conclusive finding that the concerned documents were forged,” the court observed.

The court further remarked that the submission of the petitioner that the evidence of the headmaster cannot be relied upon cannot come to his aid, because, according to the law of evidence, facts admitted need not be proved.

“As the statutory authority opined against the document relied upon by the petitioner, the evidence of the headmaster will not make much of a difference.
The submission of the petitioner that, had the verification process been conducted in a proper time, and the proceeding could have been concluded during his initial service career, then he could have had the time to look for a different job to maintain his life and livelihood, is not convincing enough to interfere with the sentence imposed upon him,” Justice Sinha noted.

He was aware of fraud from very moment applied for job: Order

• The certificate of the board examination relied upon by the petitioner has been proved to be a fraudulent one.
• Under such circumstances, the authority did not have any other option but to dismiss him from service, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification to get the job.
• The petitioner was well aware of the fact that he practiced fraud from the very moment he applied for the job by disclosing his educational qualification as Madhyamik, which he actually never passed.
  Without the minimum qualification, the petitioner was ineligible to even apply for the job, far less being selected for the same.
• The verification process was initiated in the year 1992 but due to several litigations pending before various fora, the same was finally concluded in July 2002, and thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, which concluded on May 15, 2021.

• It cannot be said with conviction that the delay in concluding the process of verification and thereafter the trial was solely attributable to the respondent authority.
  Submission of the petitioner that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate also does not appear to be proper.
• The authority has dismissed him from service, along with imprisonment for fifteen months, which means that he would not be entitled to receive any further amount after his dismissal.
• Had the salary received by the petitioner for the entire period he was in service been directed to be recovered, the same would have been a harsher punishment than that imposed upon him.
• The power of judicial review cannot be stretched to such an extent as to always show sympathy to an errant employee by modifying the punishment imposed by the employer.
• If such a view is taken by the Court, then there is every possibility that the employer will be demoralised, and it may not be possible for the employer to maintain honesty, sincerity, and discipline at the place of work.