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

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 21-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 678
678
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
v.
SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 2911 of 2022)
APRIL 21, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High
Court – Interference with the decision of disciplinary authority,
scope of – Respondent-original writ petitioner was appointed as
casual employee in 1982 – He applied for the post of Refueling
Helper and in qualification he mentioned Secondary School – Chief
Vigilance Officer received a complaint that respondent had secured
his job by submitting false and forged certificates – Similar complaint
was also made to the police authorities – Despite repetitive requests
and follow up by the authorities, the respondent did not submit the
original SSLC Certificate – The authorities of Secondary Board
were requested to check up their records – Board informed that as
per record, SSLC mark sheet did not belong to the respondent –
Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the respondent – After
taking into consideration the gravity of the acts of misconduct,
Disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from
services – Respondent was also prosecuted by the Criminal Court,
however, he was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – Against the
order of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent filed writ petition
before High Court – High Court held that punishment imposed on
the respondent was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and
directed to reinstate the respondent – Hence instant appeal – Held:
Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct – The
question is one of trust – 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 but is of
producing the fake/forged certificate – Respondent’s case was that
he pleaded guilty and admitted the submission of forged and fake
certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment would be imposed,
however, nothing on record to show who gave such assurance –
The conduct on part of respondent showed his malafide intention –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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]
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. SHRI RAJENDRA D.
HARMALKAR
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 an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.