The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that employees bear personal responsibility for fraudulent reimbursement claims, regardless of whether family members prepared the false documents. This judgment clarifies that blind reliance on relatives does not absolve an employee of liability in departmental proceedings where evidence of forgery is conclusive.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar Pandey, a clerk with Northern Coal Fields Ltd., was terminated from service after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of submitting forged medical bills to claim reimbursement for his mother’s cancer treatment at Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital, Bhopal. The employer verified hospital records and discovered that bills totaling Rs. 9,81,303 were fabricated, while actual expenses amounted to only Rs. 40,487. Many bills bore the signature and seal of Dr. B. Sanyal, who had retired in November 2005, yet the bills were dated January 2006 and later.
Procedural History
- December 2006: Charge-sheet issued against petitioner for submitting forged medical bills
- August 2012: Employer passed order terminating petitioner’s services
- August 2017: CGIT-cum-Labour Court upheld termination, finding charges proved
- 2017: Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the award
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the termination order, arguing he was an unwitting victim of his father’s alleged conspiracy to defraud the employer. He claimed he merely submitted bills handed to him by his father, who accompanied his mother for treatment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee can escape liability for submitting forged reimbursement bills by claiming he acted in good faith based on documents provided by a family member, and whether such a defence negates the finding of misconduct in a departmental enquiry.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that he suffered from mental illness and relied entirely on his father, who handled medical logistics and submitted bills. He argued that his father lodged a complaint against the hospital for delays, not against him, and that the entire case was a vendetta. He cited his own vulnerability and lack of intent to defraud as grounds for leniency.
For the Respondent
The employer’s counsel argued that the petitioner, as a literate ministerial employee familiar with reimbursement procedures, had a duty to verify documents before submission. The forged nature of the bills was independently confirmed by the hospital. The fact that the father filed a complaint about hospital delays, not about the petitioner, undermined the conspiracy theory. The employer conducted a fair enquiry and found clear evidence of fraud.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of departmental proceedings, emphasizing that the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but preponderance of probabilities. It noted that the petitioner never disputed the authenticity of the bills during the enquiry or before the Labour Court. Instead, he attempted to shift blame to his father, a defence the Court found legally untenable.
"The petitioner was a ministerial employee and was a Clerk. He was a well literate employee and must be dealing with such medical reimbursement bills of others in connection with his official duties and, therefore, this plea has rightly not been accepted by the employer that he used to believe his father blindly..."
The Court held that even if the father benefited from the fraudulent claims, the petitioner remained the person who submitted the documents to the employer. The law does not permit an employee to evade responsibility by invoking familial trust. The Court further relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran to affirm that judicial review of departmental findings is limited to cases of no evidence, procedural illegality, or shockingly disproportionate punishment - none of which were present here.
The Court also rejected the argument that the father’s complaint constituted a conspiracy, noting it pertained to hospital delays, not to the petitioner’s conduct.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the termination order, holding that submission of forged medical bills constitutes major misconduct, and blaming a family member does not absolve an employee of liability in departmental proceedings where the evidence of forgery is uncontroverted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Accountability Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must advise employers that employees are responsible for documents submitted in their name, regardless of who physically prepared them
- Defence of "blind trust" in family members will not succeed unless the employee can prove complete lack of knowledge and no opportunity to verify
- Employers should maintain independent verification protocols for medical reimbursement claims
Documentary Evidence Trumps Oral Excuses
- In departmental enquiries, verified hospital records, signature comparisons, and retirement records carry decisive weight
- Oral claims of familial coercion or ignorance are insufficient to rebut documented fraud
- Employers must preserve original documents and obtain direct verification from third-party institutions
Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Service Matters
- Courts will not re-appreciate evidence in departmental cases unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence
- Petitioners must identify procedural flaws or disproportionate punishment to succeed in writ petitions
- This judgment reinforces that fraudulent reimbursement is a grave offence warranting dismissal, even in compassionate circumstances
