Page No.# 1/22 GAHC040000572025 2026:GAU-AP:516 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/17/2025 Jitendra Prasad Son of Shri Shobha Ram Sharma, residence of Quarter No. RNC-21 Type -1, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by Secretary to the Governor, PO and PS Itanagar, Rajbhawan, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Deputy Secretary to the Governor Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Rajbhawan Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh, Tsering Nyima,Nabam Kakum,J Lomi,1 P Borah Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 20.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Page No.# 2/22 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Secretary to the Governor, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service from the post of Assistant Cook with disqualification for future employment under the Government. 3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Cook on officiating basis and his service was subsequently regularized vide order dated 05.06.2009 as Assistant Cook in the household establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Arunachal Pradesh, with effect from the date of his joining. 4. By order dated 23.08.2023, the Secretary to the Governor granted earned leave to the petitioner for a period of 19 days on domestic grounds, as recommended by the Assistant House Comptroller, Raj Bhavan, Itanagar. Prior to the expiry of the said leave period, the petitioner submitted an application seeking extension of leave from September, 2023 to October, 2023 on account of serious illness. The petitioner thereafter resumed his duties on 31.10.2023 by submitting his joining report. However, the request for extension of leave was not granted. Page No.# 3/22 5. Thereafter, vide notice dated 02.11.2023, the Secretary to the Governor issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation in respect of his application for commuted leave for 28 days with effect from 16.09.2023 to 13.10.2023, on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, wherein serious doubts were raised regarding the authenticity of the medical documents submitted by the petitioner, allegedly constituting a gross violation of the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.11.2023, furnishing his explanation and praying for recall of the Show Cause Notice, inter alia contending that due to his ongoing medical treatment he was unable to furnish a continuous series of medical certificates regarding his fitness and that the recurrence of illness at different stages could not be treated as a strange coincidence. 6. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Governor issued a Memorandum dated 30.01.2024 proposing an enquiry against the petitioner, which was accompanied by the Statement of Articles of Charge, a Statement of Imputation of Misconduct along with supporting documents and a list of witnesses, directing him to submit his written statement within 10 days. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his written statement reiterating the explanation already furnished in his reply dated 10.11.2023, and contended, inter alia, that the warning letter referred to in the Memorandum of Charge was not relevant to the present issue and ought not to be considered. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry report was submitted; the petitioner was issued a notice dated 04.09.2024 along with a copy of the enquiry report calling upon him to submit his response within 15 days of receipt thereof, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.09.2024. Page No.# 4/22 7. Consequently, the Secretary to the Governor has passed the impugned order dated 04.12.2024, whereby, the petitioner is dismissed from service as Assistant Cook with immediate effect which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Government in terms of Rule 11 Sub Rule (ix) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that, notwithstanding his appearance in the proceedings, he was effectively denied a meaningful opportunity to present his defence and was instead coerced into accepting the charges, ostensibly to facilitate imposition of a minor penalty or mere warning on the ground of it being a first-time offence. The petitioner, an Assistant Cook with limited proficiency in the English language, is stated to have faced considerable difficulty in understanding and participating in the enquiry proceedings conducted by his superior officers. It is further contended that he was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, if any, examined during the course of enquiry and that the hearing was merely a façade intended to create an impression of procedural compliance, while in reality no effective or genuine hearing was conducted, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 9. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that notwithstanding the diligent attendance of the petitioner on each and every scheduled date before the Enquiry Board, he was inexplicably denied the opportunity of oral hearing. It is further submitted that the statements of the petitioner were not duly recorded, thereby causing prejudice to his effective defence against the Articles of Charge levelled against him. The Enquiry Board is stated to have solely relied upon the written submissions, without affording prior notice or granting an opportunity for oral submissions, which, according to the Page No.# 5/22 learned counsel, clearly violates the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. 10. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel, submits that the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the impugned punishment imposed upon him are patently disproportionate and are also tainted by preconceived bias, as the enquiry, in reality, was a mere sham devoid of any intent to inquire the allegations in a fair and impartial manner. He further submits that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as well as the consequent impugned punishment, are in flagrant contravention of Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 11. He submits that the Departmental Enquiry Board, while enquiring into the matter and the Articles of Charge, neither examined the petitioner nor afforded him an opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon were not part of the documents mentioned in the list of documents or the basis of the Articles of Charge. The Enquiry Board is stated to have failed to examine and allow cross-examination of the departmental witnesses, which, according to the learned counsel, constitutes a gross violation of the principles governing departmental enquiries, as examination of witnesses is a crucial component of the entire enquiry. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is vitiated. 12. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities: (i). Union of India & Anr. vs. K G Soni, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794. (ii). Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178. Page No.# 6/22 (iii).Union of India & Ors. vs. Constable/G. D. Jageshwar Singh, decided on 20.05.2025, in Civil Appeal No. 7029 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18628 of 2019). 13. Mr. Y. Riram, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents, submits that the petitioner’s application for extension of leave was not accepted by the authority as there were serious doubts regarding the veracity of the medical certificates and the investigation reports submitted by the petitioner. Despite not being granted leave, the petitioner remained absent from duty, which necessitated the issuance of a Show Cause Notice. It is further submitted that, upon being dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply to the Show Cause Notice, the respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings by issuing a Memorandum of Charges along with the list of documents and witnesses. 14. He submits that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to present his defence and was explained in detail the charges framed against him as well as the entire enquiry proceedings in Hindi, which was understood by him. It is submitted that there was no question of the petitioner being subjected to any coercive persuasion to admit the charges levelled against him. Rather, the petitioner pleaded guilty and accepted all the charges framed against him, which, according to the respondents, stands corroborated by the documentary evidence placed on record as exhibits during the departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that throughout the proceedings, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case with all documentary evidence in accordance with the applicable legal provisions governing departmental proceedings. Even the notice for personal hearing was received by the petitioner on 01.10.2024 and he was heard in person on 03.10.2024. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself and having Page No.# 7/22 accepted the charges, the petitioner cannot simply deny the same and as such, the writ petition is devoid of merit. 15. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the materials available on record have been carefully perused. 16. The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Cook in the Governor’s Secretariat, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the allegation of unauthorised absence beyond sanctioned leave and submission of doubtful medical documents for the purpose of seeking extension of leave. Pursuant thereto, a Memorandum of Charges, dated 30.01.2024 was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In the departmental enquiry, reliance was placed on various documents including medical reports and statements contained in the record. The Enquiry Board submitted its report holding the charges proved, primarily on the basis of admission of guilt by the petitioner as well as the medical and documentary material on record. The disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the Notice, passed the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 dismissing the petitioner from service with disqualification for future employment. 17. The issue which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner suffer from procedural infirmities and violation of the principles of natural justice, including denial of effective opportunity of defence, non-examination and non- cross-examination of witnesses and reliance upon materials not supplied to the petitioner, thereby vitiating the enquiry and the consequential order of dismissal Page No.# 8/22 and whether the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. 18. The petitioner was proceeded against pursuant to the Memorandum of Charges, dated 30.01.2024, the contents of which are reproduced herein below for ready reference: “GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/6053 Dated 30 January, 2024 MEMORANDUM The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Substance of the imputation of statement of articles of charge (Annexure-1). A statement of the imputations of misconduct in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed support of each article of charge (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV). 2. Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, is directed to submit within 10 days of the receipt/ service of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desired to be heard in person. If no reply is received within stipulated time, matter will be decided ex-parte. 3 He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specially admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para, 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiry authority or otherwise fails or refuse to comply with the provision of Rules 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or the orders/ directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte. 5. Attention of Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, under which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Page No.# 9/22 6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged. Sd/-Darade Sharad Bhaskar,IPS Secretary to Governor Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. ANNEXURE-1 STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, ASSISTANT COOK, GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, ITANAGAR. Article - I That Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat, has violated Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 by unauthorizedly overstaying beyond the sanctioned leave and by his willful absence from duty without any intimation to the authority and submitting medical documents only to extend leave. Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has violated Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article - II That Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat, frequently fails to perform his duty as per requirements of the post. He lacks sincerity and dedication to duty. Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has violated Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.ANNEXURE-II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI JETENDRA PRASAD, ASSISTANT. Page No.# 10/22 Article-I Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat, was granted Earned Leave for 19 (nineteen) days w.e.f. 28.08.2023 to 15.09.2023. While approving the leave of Shri Jitendra Prasad in his personal file, authority directed that "No extension of leave will be entertained for any reason". The contrary to this direction, Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has applied for commuted leave for 28 (twenty eight) days w.e.f. 16.09.2023 to 13.10.2023 in continuation to the 19(nineteen) days Earned Leave A Medical Board was constituted by Senior Medical Officer vide to this office letter No.GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/3803 dated 13th Oct, 2023 to scrutinize his case. The Medical Board submitted its report vide letter No. RBD/3/22-23/75 dated 19.10.2023. The following points of contention arose based on such scrutiny: i. That as per the Medical Board Report, his SGPT and SGOT readings in the biochemistry tests performed on 14.09.2023 i.e two days before he consulted OPD on 16.09.2023 were abnormally high and they do not correlate with his symptoms presented at the OPD. ii. That the Medical Board got his tests conducted on 17.10.2023 in which his SGPT and SGOT readings are within normal range. The Medical Board has opined that it would take at least three months for these values to reach such normal level but in this case they reach normal range within a month. iii. That under normal circumstances, if a person falls ill, he first consult doctor and then undergoes various tests as advised by the doctor. But in this case his biochemistry tests were performed on 14.09.2023 and he consulted doctor in OPD in Meerut hospital two days later on 16.09.2023. iv. That he was not hospitalized for the treatment but treated only as an OPD patient despite such high values of SGPT and SGOT. V. That as per medical practice 4 weeks medical leave in a single go is not Page No.# 11/22 prescribed. Repeat medical tests are performed in a week or two and then decision is taken. No such repeat medical tests are performed in this case. vi. That there are no serial numbers on medical certificate of leave and fitness. The format and language on medical certificate of leave is not clear. vii. That medical certificate of fitness is dated 13.09.2023 which is three days before he even consulted the OPD! viii. That there are no bills of medicines purchased as prescribed. ix. That he fell ill right at the end of his approved earned leave which is a strange coincidence. Report from TRIHMS was also called which also confirmed some of the issues. The aforementioned points of contention raise a serious doubt that Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has submitted these medical documents only to extend his leave which would be gross violation of the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The act on the part of Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, has violated Rule 25 the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972 by his unauthorized absence beyond the sanctioned leave and his willful absence from duty. Thus he has violated 3 (1) (i) (ii) & (iii) (vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat was served with a warning letter vide No. GS/Estt-85/PF/2007 dated 16th August, 2023 for not obeying instructions given to him by the Hon'ble Governor and the First Lady of the State for his lackadaisical attitude and poor performance. His lack of concentration and sincerity has lead to his poor performance and his deliberate mistakes have hampered the dignity and decorum of the highest office of the State. He was warned verbally many times to improve his efficiency in cooking healthy and hygienic food by following proper cooking methods and to improve his cooking skills, but to no avail. Thus he has violated Rule 3 (1) (ii) (iii) & (vi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Page No.# 12/22 ANNEXURE - III LIST OF DOCUMENTS BY WHICH THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, ASSISTANT COOK, ARE PROPOSED TO BE SUSTAINED. 1. Copy of leave application of Shri Jitendra Prasad Assistant Cook, for granting 19 (nineteen) days earned leave w.e.f. 28.08.2023 to 15.09.2023 2. Copy of leave order vides GS/Estt-85/PF/2007 dated 23/08/2023. 3. Copy of Extension leave application of Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, for granting 28 (twenty eight) days Commuted leave w.e.f 16.09.2023 to 13.10.2023. 4. Copy of Medical Documents. 5. Copy of absent Report from Sub, Chob Singh, House Comptroller. 6. Copy of letter to the Senior Medical Officer, Raj Bhavan Dispensary, formation of Medical Board vide letter No.GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/3803 dated 13/10/2023. 7. Copy of letter from Dr. J.Tayeng, SMO, I/C Raj Bhavan Dispensary, Itanagar, for board member letter vide No.RBD/3/73 dated 16/10/2023. 8. Copy of letter for Medical board report of Shri Jitendra Prasad, letter vide No.RBD/3/75 dated 19/10/2023. 9. Copy of Show Cause Notice vides GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/4212-14 dated 02/11/2023. 10. Copy of reply to Show cause Notice dated 10/11/2023. 11. Copy of letter to the Director of(TRIHMS) Vide NO.GS/Estt-85/2007/4529 dated 22/11/2023. 12. Copy of Medical Report from Dr. Tao Kaki, Dy. Medical Superintendent, TRIHMS, Page No.# 13/22 Hospiatal Naharlagun, vide letter NO.TRIHMS/DEV-12/83/2019-20/Pt-III/5002-04 11/12/2023. 13. Copy of Warning letter vide No. GS/Estt-85/PF/2007 dated 16th August, 2023. ANNEXURE - IV LIST OF WITNESS BY WHOM THE ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, ASSISTANT COOK, ARE PROPOSED TO BE SUSTAINED. 1. Sub. Chob Singh, House Comptroller, Raj Bhavan, Itanagar. 2. Dr. (Mrs.) J. Tayeng, Senior Medical Officer, Raj Bhavan Dispensary. 3. Dr. Taso Beyong, Chairman Medical Board, TRIHMS. 4. Shri R.K. Rai, APCS, Under Secretary to Governor. 5. Shri Ajoy Kr. Gupta, Section Officer.” 19. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Departmental Enquiry Board submitted its report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved, which is reproduced hereinunder: “…INQUIRY REPORT OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHR JITENDRAPRASAD, ASSISTANT COOK, GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, ITANAGAR. INTRODUCTION: Vide order No GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/6426 dated 12th Feb, 2024 a Departmental Enquiry Board was constituted by the Secretary to Governor for inquiry into charges framed against Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's Secretariat, Vide No GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/6053-55 dated 30th Jan, 2024. The members of the Inquiry Board are as under; 1. Deputy Secretary to Governor - Chairman. 2. Under Secretary (TPT) to Governor - Member Page No.# 14/22 3. Section Officer - Member By the said order, the Under Secretary (Establishment) was appointed as Presenting Officer. STATEMENT OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, ASSISTANT COOK, GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT, ITANAGAR Article-I That Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's secretariat has violated Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 by unauthorisedly overstaying beyond the sanctioned leave and by his wilful absence from duty without any intimation to the authority and submitting medical documents only to extend leave, Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, has violated Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II That Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook, Governor's secretariat, frequently fails to perform his duty as per requirements of the post. He lacks sincerity and dedication to duty. Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has violated Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964. DATE OF HEARING 14.3.2024 at 3 pm in the office chamber of Deputy Secretary to Governor. 28.8.2024 at 11 am in the office chamber of Deputy Secretary to Governor. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Application for leave. 2. Leave sanction order vide No.GS/Estt-85/PF/2007 Dated 23rdAug, 2023. 3. Leave availing report. 4. Application for extension of leave with medical documents. 5. Absentee report against the Charged Official by the House Comptroller. Page No.# 15/22 6. Letter to SMO, Raj Bhavan Dispensary for formation of Medical Board vide No.GS/Estt- 85/PF/2007/3803 Dated 13thOct, 2023. 7. Medical Board formation of Raj Bhavan Dispensary vide No.RBD/3/73 Dated 16/10/2023. 8. Show Cause Notice to the Charged Official vide No.GS/Estt-85/PF/2007/4212-14 Dated 2ndNov, 2023. 9. Reply to Show Cause Notice, dated 10th Nov, 2023. 10. Letter to Director (TRIHMS) seeking opinion on medical documents submitted by the Charged Official, vide No.GS.Estt-85/2007/4529 Dated 22ndNov, 2023. 11. Report from TRIHMS vide No.TRIHMS/Dev-12/83/2019-20/Pt-III/5002-04 Dated 11th Dec, 2023. 12. Warning letter to the Charged Official in Hindi vide No. No.GS.Estt- 85/PF/2007/2593-95 Dated 16th Aug, 2023. 13. Findings of the board constituted by the CMO, PL Sharma District Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on medical documents issued by Dr Annu Gupta to the Charged Official. FINDINGS OF THE MEDICAL BOARD OF TRIHMS ON QUERIES RELATED TO MEDICAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR EXTENSION OF LEAVE BY SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, CHARGED OFFICIAL. Query-That under normal circumstances, if a person falls ill, he first consults the doctor and then undergoes various tests as advised by the doctor. But in this case, his biochemistry tests were performed on 14.9.2023 and he consulted the doctor in OPD in Meerut two days later on 16.9.2023. Observation of the Medical Board - The present medical board totally agrees with above observation that under normal circumstances a patient gets tested only after consulting a doctor. A patient with such severe symptoms and abnormal test report would normally never consider delaying his own treatment intentionally. Query - That he was not hospitalised for the treatment but treated only as an OPD patient despite such high values of SGPT and SGOT. Observation of the Medical Board - Ideally any such patient with fever, acute abdomen, nausea and vomiting with severe jaundice and tachycardia should preferably be admitted, managed and further investigated appropriately in that health care centre (e.g, repeat LFT, KFT, S. electrolytes, CBC, viral marker and an ultrasound of abdomen with an emphasis on hepatobiliary system). In absence of such minimum basic facilities at that health care centre, a referral to the nearest Page No.# 16/22 higher centre is the usual norm. Query - That as per medical practice, 4 weeks medical leave in a single go is not prescribed. Repeat medical tests are performed in a week or two and then decision is taken. No such repeat medical tests are performed in this case. Observation of the Medical board - As per the NMC/MCI guidelines the maximum days of medical leave a treating doctor can prescribe his/her patient is 2 weeks. If need be, re-issuance can be done but only after seeing the patient again. This medical board also could not appreciate any mention of his repeat examination findings and investigations before the date of issue of his medical fitness certificate in the documents provided to it. Query - That medical certificate of fitness is dated 13.9.2023 which is three days before he even consulted the OPD. Observation of the Medical Board - Medical certificate can never be issued by the Doctor before the date of first consultation for any ongoing disease/ailment. FINDINGS OF THE MEDICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED BY THE CMO, PL SHARMA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH ON MEDICAL DOCUMENTS ISSUEDBY DR ANNU GUPTA TO SHRI JITENDRA PRASAD, CHARGED OFFICIAL. 1. Medical document issued by Dr Annu Gupta has been issued under some influence to give undue benefit to the patient. 2. Dr Annu Gupta whose appointment is on contractual basis, is not authorised to issue medicalcertificates independently and was warned earlier as well to not to issue medical certificates but in-spite of that she has done it again. 3. The present medical board agrees with all the findings of earlier board constituted with regards to examination of medical certificate. 4. Contract appointment has been concealed in the seal thereby misleading the patient. BRIEF BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER The gist of brief by the Presenting Officer is as under: As the Charged Official Shri Jitendra Prasad, Assistant Cook has accepted the charges framed against him, the charges are proved beyond doubt. CONCLUSION The Charged Official has pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him, which Page No.# 17/22 corroborates with the documental evidence placed as exhibits. The findings of the Medical Board of TRIHMS placed as exhibit no-11 makes it amply clear that medical documents were manufactured by the Charged Official solely for extension of his leave, which is further substantiated by the findings of the board constituted by the CMO, PL Sharma District Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh placed as exhibit no-13. The warning letter to the Charged Official, placed as exhibit.no-12 proves that he has been failing to perform his duty as per requirement of the post. Therefore, the charges framed at Article-l and Article-II against Shri Jitendra Prasad, the Charged Official stands proved. Under Secretary (TPT) to Governor (Member-1 of the Departmental Enquiry Board) Section Officer (Member-2 of the Departmental Enquiry Board) Deputy Secretary to Governor (Chairman of the Departmental Enquiry Board) 20. After examination of the enquiry report, the Secretary to the Governor passed the impugned order, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect, which would ordinarily operate as a disqualification for future employment under the Government. 21. A perusal of the Memorandum of Charges dated 30.01.2024 shows that the petitioner was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on two Articles of Charge, namely, unauthorised absence beyond sanctioned leave coupled with submission of doubtful medical documents for extension of leave and alleged lack of sincerity and devotion to duty in discharge of official functions. The memorandum was accompanied by Annexure-I containing the Articles of Charge, Annexure-II containing detailed statement of imputations, Annexure-III listing the documents and Annexure-IV listing the witnesses Page No.# 18/22 proposed to be relied upon. 22. Annexure-II to the charge memorandum contains detailed factual imputations forming the foundation of the disciplinary action. The same refers to the petitioner having been granted earned leave for 19 days from 28.08.2023 to 15.09.2023 and thereafter having applied for extension of leave on medical grounds from 16.09.2023 to 13.10.2023. It refers to constitution of a Medical Board and the scrutiny of medical records, wherein several inconsistencies were noticed, including timing of medical tests vis-à-vis consultation, variations in SGPT/SGOT readings, issuance of fitness certificate prior to consultation and absence of supporting treatment records. On the basis of such observations, doubt was raised regarding the genuineness of the medical documents submitted by the petitioner. 23. The disciplinary proceedings were accordingly initiated and the matter proceeded to enquiry in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 24. Upon completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Board submitted its report holding that the charges stood proved. The report records reliance upon various documents including the report of TRIHMS dated 11.12.2023, the report of the Medical Board constituted by PL Sharma District Hospital, Meerut and the warning letter dated 16.08.2023. The enquiry report shows that the finding of guilt is primarily founded on two aspects, first, the alleged admission of guilt by the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings and second, the documentary and medical evidence forming part of the record. The Enquiry Board considered that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charges and on that basis, directed the Presenting Officer to submit his brief, leading to the conclusion that the charges stood proved. Page No.# 19/22 25. The reliance placed on the medical reports, particularly the report of TRIHMS dated 11.12.2023 and the report of the Medical Board constituted by PL Sharma District Hospital, Meerut, shows that the core allegation pertains to the genuineness of the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner. The said reports contain detailed observations regarding inconsistencies in medical findings, timing of consultation and improbability of recovery, leading to the conclusion that the documents were not reliable. It is thus evident that the disciplinary conclusion is based on the alleged acceptance of charges during the enquiry proceedings as well as the documentary and medical material collected during the course of enquiry. 26. The warning letter dated 16.08.2023 has also been taken into consideration while assessing the overall conduct of the petitioner. However, the same pertains to alleged past conduct and cannot, by itself, constitute proof of the specific misconduct alleged in the present Charge Memorandum. 27. The petitioner has contended that the enquiry was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, particularly on the ground that he was not afforded effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that the proceedings were conducted merely as a formality without properly considering his defence. The record, however, indicates that the petitioner was served with the Memorandum of Charges along with all documents sought to be relied upon and was given opportunity to submit his written statement. It further reflects that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and was also afforded personal hearing. During the enquiry proceedings held on 14.03.2024, the petitioner was specifically asked whether he admitted the charges, to which he answered in affirmative. Page No.# 20/22 28. Once the petitioner has admitted the charges during the course of enquiry proceedings, the requirement of strict proof through examination or cross- examination of witnesses does not arise in the same manner, particularly where such admission is voluntary and clear. An admission is the best evidence against the person making it, unless shown to be involuntary or vitiated by coercion. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the alleged admission was obtained under coercion or that he was deprived of understanding the nature of the proceedings. Mere assertion of procedural irregularity, without supporting material, is insufficient to vitiate duly conducted disciplinary proceedings. 29. Even otherwise, the documentary and medical evidence on record independently supports the findings recorded by the Enquiry Board. The reports of the medical authorities, duly constituted for verification of disputed documents, raise serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the conclusion of misconduct. 30. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the petitioner, in K G Soni (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the findings and interference is permissible only where the decision suffers from illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. In Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), it was held that unauthorised absence does not automatically amount to wilful absence and must be proved on the basis of evidence and that findings cannot be based on conjectures or by ignoring relevant material. In Constable/G.D. Jageshwar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary matters, holding that interference with punishment is justified only in cases where it is Page No.# 21/22 shockingly disproportionate or arbitrary. The aforesaid decisions lay down settled principles governing judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, but the same do not assist the petitioner in the facts of the present case, as in the present case the disciplinary findings are based on material on record, due procedure has been followed, and no case of illegality, perversity, or procedural infirmity is made out. 31. In the present case, it is evident from the departmental proceedings that the petitioner, during the enquiry as well as at the stage of personal hearing, has accepted the charges levelled against him, which has been duly recorded in the enquiry proceedings. The said acceptance is not shown to have been obtained under any coercion or undue influence and, therefore, constitutes a clear admission on the part of the petitioner. The Enquiry Board has proceeded on the basis of such admission, which is also corroborated by the documentary and medical records forming part of the enquiry file. In such circumstances, the findings recorded cannot be said to be unsupported by material on record. The record further reflects that the petitioner was supplied with the Memorandum of Charges along with documents and was afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry and submit his defence. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful examination of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing at all stages of the disciplinary proceedings, including the service of Memorandum of Charges, supply of relied upon documents, participation in the enquiry and personal hearing. The proceedings, as reflected from the enquiry record, do not suffer from any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Board are based on materials available on record, which include Page No.# 22/22 documentary and medical evidence as well as the petitioner’s admission of the charges during the enquiry proceedings. In the absence of any demonstrated illegality, perversity, or procedural lapse, the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority cannot be faulted nor the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Governor, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, does not warrant interference. 33. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant