As per case facts, the Respondent was absent for nearly three years without authorization and submitted false medical and fitness certificates, and made false statements to regularize his leave. A ... disciplinary inquiry found these charges proved, leading to his dismissal from service, which was upheld by higher authorities. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside this dismissal, arguing that forgery required expert opinion and a criminal case, and directed a lesser penalty. The Petitioners appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether the CAT was justified in substituting its own conclusions for the disciplinary authority and imposing a lesser penalty, particularly when grave misconduct like submitting false documents was proved. Finally, the High Court held that the CAT exceeded its jurisdiction by incorrectly applying standards of criminal proceedings and re-appreciating evidence. The court emphasized that such misconduct reflects dishonesty and lack of integrity, justifying dismissal, and restored the original dismissal order.