Medical Records Cannot Be Summarily Discarded Without Verification In Disciplinary Proceedings: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that discarding medical records without verifying their authenticity vitiates disciplinary proceedings, particularly where the defence of illness goes to the root of alleged unauthorised absence.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Courts & disciplinary authorities cannot disregard medical records produced by an employee without first ascertaining their authenticity, and that such failure amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice, warranting interference.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings culminating in removal from service, as well as the rejection of the statutory appeal.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: “Neither this Court nor the respondents can brush aside or refuse to consider the medical records produced by the petitioner without ascertaining the veracity of the said records.”
Advocate Vikas Mangotra appeared for the petitioner, while CGSC Ranjeet Singh Jamwal represented the Union of India.
Background
The petitioner, a member of the Central Reserve Police Force, had proceeded on sanctioned medical leave but did not rejoin duty upon expiry of the leave period. The justification advanced by the petitioner was that he was suffering from serious ailments and remained under continuous medical treatment for a prolonged duration.
The petitioner contended that he had informed the authorities about his illness and had submitted communications along with medical certificates issued by government hospitals explaining his inability to resume duty or participate in the enquiry proceedings.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner had overstayed his leave without authorisation and had failed to respond to repeated communications, thereby justifying the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the conduct of an enquiry ex parte.
Court’s Observation
The Court, upon examining the record, found that the petitioner had indeed communicated his illness to the Enquiry Officer on multiple occasions and had produced medical records in support of his claim. It noted that even the disciplinary authority had acknowledged receipt of such medical documents while passing the impugned order.
Despite this, the authorities proceeded to discard the medical evidence without undertaking any verification or enquiry into its authenticity. The Court held that such an approach was impermissible, observing that “it was not open either to the Enquiry Officer or to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Appellate Authority to discard the medical records… without ascertaining the authenticity and veracity of these documents.”
The Court further emphasised that mere unauthorised absence cannot ipso facto lead to the imposition of punishment unless it is established that such absence was wilful and deliberate. Where illness is pleaded, the authorities are required to examine the defence rather than reject it summarily.
The Court referred to Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank (2014), in which the Apex Court had held that unless the medical reports are forged or fabricated, it is “not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason”.
The Court also referred to Union of India v. I.S. Singh (1994) and observed that the Enquiry Officer is duty-bound to consider communications of the delinquent employee regarding illness and, if necessary, call for further proof or direct medical examination instead of proceeding ex parte.
In the present case, the Court found that the enquiry had been conducted in a manner contrary to the prescribed procedure and in breach of principles of natural justice. It observed that the petitioner’s defence was neither properly considered nor verified, and that proceeding ex parte in such circumstances was unjustified.
The Court concluded: “… the respondents have committed a serious breach of principles of natural justice by proceeding ex parte against the petitioner while holding an enquiry against him, … if the petitioner was really suffering from a serious disease like Typhoid and Hepatitis, it would not have been possible for him to present himself before the Enquiry Officer, … without ascertaining the truthfulness or otherwise of the said contention of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have proceeded to hold the enquiry against the petitioner ex parte and pass the impugned order of his removal from service”.
“Not even the Appellate Authority has applied its mind to this aspect of the matter inasmuch as it has proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner in a cryptic manner, without assigning any reasons”, the Bench added.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated on account of failure to consider and verify the medical evidence and consequent violation of natural justice.
Accordingly, the impugned orders of removal and rejection of appeal were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. Liberty was granted to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry after verifying the authenticity of the medical records and proceed in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:835)