Bogus PwD Certificates Amount To Moral Turpitude: Bombay High Court Upholds Re-Assessment Of Employees’ Disability Status Amid Suspicious Surge
The Bench said that securing public employment via fabricated disability credentials amounts to gross moral turpitude and eradicates any protected right to remain in service.
The Bombay High Court while upholding the State’s regulatory powers, has ruled that public employers have an inherent right to verify the authenticity of credentials submitted by employees, which fully extends to ordering a fresh medical re-assessment of public servants holding disability certificates when a genuine suspicion of misrepresentation or systemic fraud arises. The Bench noted that the charts tendered by various Advocates which were on record, indicated ‘hearing impairment’ as being the most favourite disability, where more than 90% of such PwDs, have acquired the disability after recruitment, only after the State Government introduced special benefits for PwDs.
The bench observed that while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 protects genuine individuals, it does not grant statutory immunity to those who secure or continue public employment through exaggerated or completely fabricated disability percentages. The Court held that securing or retaining public employment through fabricated medical credentials constitutes gross moral turpitude and fraud on the Constitution of India, observing that misuse of welfare quotas destroys employer trust and renders benefits obtained through such deception void from inception.
Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abhay J. Mantri observed, “...every public employer has the inherent right to verify the authenticity of documents of their employees.…the State has the authority to carry out medical examination for re-assessment, in peculiar, specific and warranting circumstances, we deem it appropriate to approve such exercise undertaken by the State, as a one time measure, provided a special Medical Board is constituted for the purpose of the medical re-examination. In future cases (new cases) of appointments or in service disability claims, after the date of this judgment, the authorities would be bound to follow the RPwD Act, 2016 and the 2017 Rules r/w the Maharashtra Rules, 2024”.
“It is apparent from the above Government Resolutions that the State noticed several deficiencies and irregularities in the medical certificates and UDID cards which certified candidates as being eligible for benefits to the differently abled persons. There was a sudden surge of in-service candidates seeking benefits of the Government Resolution. It was ordered that those candidates whose medical certificates carry deficiencies or mistakes would be subjected to a re-examination”, it observed further.
Senior advocates Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Suresh S. Pakale and Sanjeev Kadam and panels of advocates represented the numerous petitioners and P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP., V. G. Badgujar, AGP, Priyanka Chavan, AGP, P. N. Diwan, AGP appeared for the respondent state authorities.
The dispute arose when the State of Maharashtra noticed a deeply concerning pattern across districts where an alarming number of in-service candidates suddenly began claiming welfare benefits by procuring physical infirmity certificates.
Crucially, the state pointed out that more than 90% of such persons with disabilities claiming hearing impairment had acquired the disability after their recruitment, suspiciously timing it with the introduction of special government benefits for disabled employees.
In response, the state issued a Government Circular dated June 16, 2025, and a Government Resolution dated October 9, 2025, ordering primary teachers employed under the disabled quota to undergo strict medical re-verification. Medical boards subsequently revealed that scores of teachers possessed disability percentages significantly below the statutory forty percent benchmark or were entirely able-bodied, prompting regional authorities like the Pune Zilla Parishad to initiate punitive show-cause and suspension actions under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services rules.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the validity of the state directives and the consequential disciplinary actions. They argued that the state government lacked the statutory power under Section 56 of the 2016 Act to prescribe administrative guidelines for assessing disability, and contended that the Zilla Parishad was only entitled to verify historical documents rather than force employees to undergo a fresh medical board.
Upholding the state's regulatory powers, the court reasoned that the state is under a constitutional obligation to protect equal opportunities, which includes a duty to prevent the misuse of welfare provisions by individuals usurping opportunities meant for persons with benchmark disabilities. The bench firmly held that "there is no conclusive presumption in favour of a disability certificate once issued under the RPWD Act, 2016, so as to be binding against all entities, for all purposes and in perpetuity".
“A striking pattern emerging from these Petitions is that, the individuals who questioned the State’s procedure, have themselves chosen to avoid the medical assessment and verification. Some have even refused. They are not going to the medical boards, nor are they cooperating with the verification mechanism. Instead, they allege non-adherence of the statutory procedure by the State…We are of the view that those candidates whose medical certificates or the UDID card suffer from procedural deficiencies or are acquired by nefarious means, would amount to moral turpitude on their part. Acquiring bogus certificates or manipulating authorities to acquire a disability certificate or UDID card so as to facilitate selection or become entitled to certain service PwD benefits, would amount to an immoral act. Moral turpitude is a conduct that is inherently base, vile, depraved, or contrary to accepted moral standards of the society. It implies something done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. The Supreme Court has described it as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to fellow human beings or to society in general. If any person has fraudulently obtained a disability certificate, thereby securing public employment otherwise meant for genuine persons with disabilities, and enjoying statutory benefits funded by the public exchequer for years, would squarely fall within the definition of moral turpitude”, the Bench categorically observed.
“Misconduct involving moral turpitude can justify dismissal or removal from service even for a first offence. It disentitles an employee from leniency in punishment. The gravity of the misconduct itself warrants the severest punishment. Courts have consistently held that offences such as misappropriation, fraud, fabrication of records, and bribery, fall squarely within the ambit of moral turpitude. Service length, family circumstances, or being on the verge of retirement, are not mitigating factors, when the foundational act of acquiring an appointment is a result of playing a fraud”, it further said.
The court further stressed that a person who secures or retains government employment by producing a false disability certificate has no protection under the law, as employment obtained through fraud is void ab initio and confers no protected right.
“The fear of ‘black sheep’ manipulating the medical certificates or UDID cards for facilitating their appointment, cannot be ruled out, even in future. Therefore, we direct that, in future, any candidate who applies for a post reserved for a PwD or an in-service candidate claims to have acquired any disability, each such case shall be subjected to the rigours of the exercise as is provided under the RPwD Act, 2016, the 2017 Rules and the Maharashtra Rules, 2024” it noted.
The Court, accordingly, partly allowed the writ petitions by quashing the immediate punitive orders of suspension or stoppage of salaries, directing instead that all petitioners must subject themselves to a fresh medical examination before a specially designated Medical Board as a uniform, one-time measure.
The court ordered that if an employee's disability is re-assessed below the 40% benchmark, proper departmental inquiries must be conducted prior to compulsory retirement or termination, while criminal and disciplinary actions must be rigorously initiated against doctors found complicit in fabricating false certificates.
Cause Title: Santosh Hiraman Lashkare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:22080-DB) along with connected petitions.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Suresh S. Pakale and Sanjeev Kadam.
Respondents: P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. V. G. Badgujar, AGP,. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, P. N. Diwan, AGP.