Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has directed prosecution of a former J&K State Road Transport Corporation employee for allegedly using a forged medical certificate before the court as a reason for his absence.
The court held that a litigant who approaches the court on the basis of a forged document cannot claim discretionary protection available under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that where a writ petition is founded on fraudulent or forged documents, the court can dismiss it at the threshold without entering into the merits of the underlying claim.
The ruling underscores the principle that a party seeking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court must approach it with clean hands and complete candour.
The court also ordered initiation of prosecution against the petitioner in connection with the alleged use of the forged medical certificate, treating the conduct as a serious abuse of the judicial process.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Corporation ex-employee, Bashir Ahmad Ganai, directed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to lodge a criminal complaint against him before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.
The petitioner had challenged an order of the Corporation treating the period from October 21, 2011 till his joining as “dies non” and had sought that the period be treated as on duty with consequential service benefits.
His earlier termination from service had been quashed by the High Court in 2017, with directions for his reinstatement and liberty to the Corporation to hold an inquiry into his alleged unauthorized absence.
The petitioner was subsequently reinstated, but the Corporation treated portions of his absence as leave and the remaining period as “dies non”.
During the proceedings, the petitioner relied upon a medical certificate purportedly issued by the Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, to explain his prolonged absence.
The hospital authorities, however, informed the court that the certificate produced before it was not genuine. Verification revealed differences between the certificate actually issued by the hospital and the document annexed with the writ petition, including additional sentences concerning treatment from November 2004 to October 2011 and an appended photograph.
The issuing authority also stated that the signatures on the certificate produced before the court did not belong to the actual signatories.
The court noted that although the petitioner had apparently been a patient of the psychiatric hospital, the medical record produced by him did not establish treatment for the entire period claimed.
It concluded that he had produced a forged certificate to justify his unauthorized absence.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., Justice Dhar reiterated that a person invoking Article 226 must approach the court with complete candour.
Suppression or distortion of material facts can disentitle a litigant from relief, while an order obtained by fraud is treated as a nullity in law.
The court further observed that the material on record prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 336 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to forgery and using a forged document as genuine.
It invoked Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires a written complaint by the Court or an authorised court officer for prosecution of such offences when committed in relation to court proceedings.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the Registrar Judicial was directed to file the criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, for prosecution in accordance with law.
