J&K&L High Court Orders Prosecution Of Former Govt Employee For Using Forged Medical Certificate To Justify 7-Year Absence From Duty
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition and ordered the prosecution of a petitioner who produced a forged medical certificate to support his claim for service benefits.
The Court found that the petitioner had incorporated additional sentences in a medical certificate to justify his unauthorized absence from service for nearly seven years, and directed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to file a criminal complaint against him for offences under Sections 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a former employee of the J&K State Road Transport Corporation challenging the treatment of his absence period from 21.10.2011 till his joining duties as 'dies non'. The petitioner had been terminated from service in 2006, reinstated by the High Court in 2017, and after an enquiry, his absence period was treated as 'dies non' by the Corporation.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, observed,
"Once it has been found that the petitioner has produced a forged certificate before this Court, it would not be permissible for this Court to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of petitioner."
Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the J&K State Road Transport Corporation and then terminated in 2006. The petitioner challenged his termination before the Court contending that no enquiry had been conducted and that his absence was occasioned on account of serious ailment. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the termination order and directing reinstatement.
The Court directed that payment of consequential benefits for the period from November 2004 till the decision of the writ petition would depend on the enquiry to be conducted by the respondents.
Pursuant to the directions, the petitioner was reinstated and an enquiry was held. Vide an Order the period of absence from 01.11.2004 till 20.10.2011 was treated as leave of whatever kind due, whereas the period from 21.10.2011 till date of joining was treated as 'dies non'.
The petitioner challenged this order, contending that no enquiry was held and that the treatment of the period as 'dies non' amounted to punishment. The petitioner relied upon a medical certificate issued by the Government Psychiatric Disease Hospital, Srinagar, to show that he was under treatment from 01.11.2004 to 20.10.2011.
The respondent-Corporation challenged the genuineness of the certificate, stating that it had come to their notice that the certificate was forged, which was verified by the hospital. The Court then directed the Deputy Director, Health Services, Kashmir, and Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, to file a detailed report regarding the authenticity of the certificate.
Court's Observation:
The Court examined the compliance report filed by the authorities and found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was forged. The Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, in his communication admitted that a medical certificate was issued to the petitioner in May 2016. However, the certificate actually issued did not contain the last two sentences that appeared in the certificate annexed as Annexure-D to the writ petition.
The Court observed,
"There is a marked difference between the two certificates, inasmuch as the certificate dated 24.05.2016, which the Medical Superintendent has reproduced in his letter dated 07.10.2023, the last two sentences... which are part of the Medical Certificate annexed as Annexure-D to the writ petition do not find mention."
The Court noted that the certificate issued by the hospital did not mention that the patient was under treatment since 01.11.2004 to 20.10.2011 on OPD basis, nor did it mention that an attested passport size photograph was appended. The Court observed,
"These two sentences, it seems, have been incorporated by the petitioner by preparing another certificate with more or less same language as is mentioned in the actual certificate... It appears that the petitioner, in order to justify his absence from duty from 01.11.2004 to 20.10.2011, has incorporated these sentences in the certificate, which does not find mention in the certificate actually issued."
The Court also noted that the signatories had declared the certificate as not genuine. While it may be correct that the petitioner had been a patient undergoing treatment, he had produced a forged certificate to explain his unauthorized absence.
The Court applied the settled legal position that fraudulent documents cannot form the basis for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Court relied upon Prestige Lights Ltd v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449, wherein the Supreme Court held that a person invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to place all facts without reservation, and if there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts, the High Court would be justified in refusing to entertain the petition.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the prosecution of the petitioner for having used a forged document to support his claim before the Court.
"While dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free. There is material on record to prima facie disclose commission of forgery and allied offences. Section 336 of BNS makes an offence of forgery punishable... Section 340 of BNS makes the act of using as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, punishable. Both these offences, prima facie, seem to have been committed by the petitioner, as such, he deserves to be prosecuted in accordance with law.", the court remarked.
The Court directed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to file a complaint against the petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, for his prosecution in accordance with law.
Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Ganai v. State of J&K and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326
Appearances
Petitioner: Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate
Respondents: Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate