The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Airports Authority of India (AAI) officer challenging his removal from service for allegedly submitting a fake experience certificate. The Court held that the departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, and the findings were based on legal evidence, leaving no scope for judicial interference.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery in Akansh Choudhary v. Union of India and Others, Writ-A No. 7181 of 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Akansh Choudhary, is a 2013 graduate in B.Tech (Mining Engineering) from the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (now IIT Dhanbad). He initially worked at M/s Hansa Management Services Pvt. Ltd. as a Management Trainee and then at M/s Zicron Sugar Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ZSSPL) as a Trade Executive from January 2014 to January 2017, as per his claim.
In 2017, Choudhary was selected for the post of Junior Executive (Commercial) at AAI’s Vadodara Airport. At that time, he did not disclose his experience at ZSSPL. In 2018, he applied for promotion to Manager (Commercial) at AAI, which required five years of executive experience in marketing. At this stage, he submitted an experience certificate dated 22.02.2017 from ZSSPL. He was selected and appointed to the post at AAI, Coimbatore, on 3.6.2019.
An anonymous complaint received on 10.5.2019 alleged that the ZSSPL certificate was fake. Although ZSSPL later verified the certificate in response to AAI’s queries, the matter was investigated further, resulting in a charge-sheet being issued on 3.11.2022.
Departmental Inquiry and Findings
Choudhary participated in the inquiry proceedings and cross-examined the witnesses. The Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report dated 6.11.2023, finding the charge of submitting a fake experience certificate proved. The report recorded that:
“The charges leveled against CO seems true therefore my findings are as under: Article of Charge 1 – PROVED.”
Key points from the inquiry included:
- The petitioner never submitted the ZSSPL certificate during his initial appointment in 2017 and only presented it in 2018 when applying for promotion.
- During the inspection of ZSSPL’s office, it was found to be a small one-room office with only one staff member, raising doubts about its legitimacy.
- No questions were raised by the petitioner during cross-examination about this inspection, which remained uncontroverted.
- The petitioner could not produce any salary records for his alleged employment at ZSSPL, nor were such earnings declared in his income tax returns.
Penalty and Appeal
Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of “Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment” under Regulation 28 of the AAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 2003. An appeal filed by Choudhary was also dismissed on 16.1.2025.
Arguments Before the High Court
Choudhary challenged the disciplinary proceedings, arguing that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself and that certain documents were never confronted to him. He also claimed that the inspection of ZSSPL’s premises was ex parte and that non-disclosure of salary in tax returns was an inadvertent omission due to lack of familiarity with tax rules.
The respondents contended that principles of natural justice were followed, and that Choudhary had full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. They also pointed out the suspicious timing of the certificate’s submission and other inconsistencies.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters:
“Where there is some evidence… which may reasonably support the conclusion… it is not the function of the High Court… to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding.”
Justice Shamshery observed:
“It could be very safely concluded, that the petitioner was granted full opportunity to place his case during inquiry. He has cross-examined witnesses at length, therefore, there is no error in decision making process.”
The Court noted adverse facts, including:
- Late disclosure of the ZSSPL certificate only at the time of promotion.
- Lack of clarity on salary records and non-declaration in ITRs.
- Absence of questions on inspection of ZSSPL office during cross-examination.
The Court held that the punishment order was based on legal evidence and was not shockingly disproportionate.
“No case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order of punishment.”
The writ petition was dismissed on 29 July 2025. The High Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision, affirming that the petitioner’s removal from service was justified and supported by evidence.
