The authorities from the Governor’s secretariat claimed that the conduct of the cook amounted to a violation of service rules, Justice Kardak Ete noted. (Image enhanced using AI)

Leave extension led to inquiry

According to court records, Prasad was granted 19 days of earned leave from August 28, 2023, to September 15, 2023.

Before the leave period expired, he applied for an extension on medical grounds, claiming that he was suffering from a serious illness.

He ultimately rejoined duty on October 31, 2023 in the Governor’s .

However, the Governor’s secretariat did not approve the extension request. Instead, doubts were raised regarding the authenticity of the medical documents submitted in support of the leave application.

A medical board was constituted by the Governor‘s secretariat to examine the records and subsequently pointed out several discrepancies.

Among the issues flagged were unusually high liver enzyme readings that allegedly did not align with the symptoms recorded by the treating doctor, laboratory tests conducted before the medical consultation, the absence of repeat medical examinations, and a fitness certificate that appeared to have been issued before the employee had even consulted the doctor.

Based on these findings, the authorities from the Governor‘s secretariat issued a show-cause notice in November 2023 and later initiated disciplinary proceedings.

Charges of unauthorised absence, misconduct

A memorandum issued on January 30, 2024, charged Prasad with overstaying sanctioned leave without authorisation and with allegedly submitting medical documents solely to secure an extension of leave.

The authorities from the Governor‘s secretariat claimed that the conduct amounted to a violation of service rules.

A second charge accused him of lacking sincerity and dedication to duty.

The chargesheet referred to an earlier warning letter issued in August 2023 over alleged poor performance and failure to follow instructions.

The inquiry relied on multiple documents, including medical reports, leave records, correspondence between authorities and hospitals, and witness statements.

Employee claimed inquiry was unfair

Before the high court, Prasad argued that he had not been given a meaningful opportunity to defend himself during the departmental proceedings.

His counsel submitted that the inquiry was conducted merely as a formality and that he had not been allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

It was further argued that his statements were not properly recorded and that his limited understanding of English affected his ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.

The petitioner also claimed that he was persuaded to admit the charges on the understanding that only a minor punishment or warning would be imposed because it was allegedly a first-time offence.

According to him, the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice and the safeguards available to government employees under service jurisprudence.

State said due process was followed

The state government opposed the petition and maintained that Prasad had been given every opportunity to defend himself.

According to the respondents including the Governor‘s secretariat, the charges and proceedings were explained to him in Hindi, a language he understood.

They further contended that he voluntarily admitted the charges during the inquiry and that his admission was supported by documentary evidence and independent medical findings.

The state also pointed out that he had been supplied with all relevant documents, had submitted written replies, and had been granted a personal hearing before the disciplinary authority passed the final order.

Court relied on admission of charges

After examining the records, the high court found that Prasad had participated in the inquiry proceedings and had admitted the charges against him.

Justice Ete observed that where a charged employee voluntarily admits misconduct, the requirement of proving allegations through detailed witness examination and cross-examination is substantially reduced.

The court noted that there was no material to support the allegation that the admission had been obtained through coercion or undue influence.

“An admission is the best evidence against the person making it, unless shown to be involuntary or vitiated by coercion,” the court said.

The court found no procedural irregularity in the departmental inquiry that concluded the employee had overstayed sanctioned leave and relied on questionable medical documents to secure an extension.

Medical evidence supported findings

• The high court also found that independent medical evidence supported the conclusions reached by the inquiry board.
• The judgment referred to reports prepared by medical authorities, including the Tomo Riba Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (TRIHMS), which raised serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the certificates submitted by the employee.
• Another medical board constituted at PL Sharma District Hospital in Meerut reportedly concluded that the certificates appeared to have been issued improperly and that the doctor concerned was not authorized to issue such certificates independently.
• The court observed that these reports reinforced the conclusion that the documents submitted for leave extension were unreliable.

No violation of natural justice

• Rejecting the challenge to the inquiry process by the Governor‘s secretariat, the court held that Prasad had received the charge memorandum, supporting documents, opportunities to submit his defence, and a personal hearing.
• The judgment recorded that the proceedings did not suffer from any procedural irregularity, illegality, or perversity.
• The court further held that the punishment imposed by the Governor‘s secretariat could not be described as shockingly disproportionate, especially in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the material available on record.
• Finding no ground to interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the dismissal order issued by the secretary to the Governor, Arunachal Pradesh.