Supreme Court of India
K. RAJAIAHversusTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 142
- Decided
- 11 February 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K V VISWANATHAN
Holding
The charge of forgery was not proved because the inquiry officer failed to verify the disputed handwriting, making the finding perverse and unsupported by evidence.
Summary
K. Rajaiah, a court attender, was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry concluded that he had fabricated a handwritten medical certificate to justify his unauthorized absence from 3‑8‑2017 to 7‑8‑2017. The inquiry relied on the testimony of Dr. Bommaraveni, who denied issuing the certificate and alleged it was fabricated, while the appellant claimed the certificate was genuine. The Supreme Court examined whether the inquiry officer had properly evaluated the evidence, noting that the disputed handwriting was not compared with the undisputed signature and no handwriting expert was consulted. Citing precedents, the Court held that where findings are based on no evidence, judicial review may intervene, and the failure to verify the certificate rendered the forgery charge unproved. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and the dismissal, directing the appellant’s reinstatement with full consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary inquiry’s finding of forgery of the medical certificate was supported by evidence
- Whether the inquiry officer was required to refer the disputed handwriting to an expert before concluding fabrication
- Whether the High Court’s upholding of the dismissal can be interfered with on the ground of perverse findings
- Whether the mandatory penalty of dismissal applies when the charge of forgery is not established
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld by the High Court. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of documents – Appellant-court duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that the appellant had approached him and received some tablets but he did not remember the date of treatment –
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedingsInquiry OfficerMedical CertificateDisputed writing in Medical CertificateDismissal from serviceHandwritten medical certificateMisconductDepartmental appeal
Judgment
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 68 : 2026 INSC 142
K. Rajaiah
v.
The High Court for the State of Telangana
(Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026)
11 February 2026
[K.V. Viswanathan* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference
with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld
by the High Court.
Headnotes†
Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of
documents – Appellant-court attender remained absent from
his duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical
certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied
having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that
the appellant had approached him and received some tablets
but he did not remember the date of treatment – Charges of
misconduct proved in the disciplinary proceedings and the
appellant was dismissed from service, later upheld in the
departmental appeal – High Court also upheld the order of
dismissal – Correctness:
Held: Parameters for judicial review against orders passed in
disciplinary proceedings are limited – However, where the findings
are based on no evidence a court of law perfectly justified in
interfering with the orders in disciplinary proceedings – Having failed
to verify the disputed and the undisputed signature, the finding of
the Inquiry Officer that the medical certificate was not genuine,
is perverse and based on no credible evidence – Signature on
the Medical Certificate also not identical though broadly similar
to what is in the acknowledgement and on the statement given
by the doctor to the Presiding Judge – When nothing conclusive
emerges one way or the other, prudence would dictate and common
sense would command that the inquiry officer referred the matter
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 69
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
to a handwriting expert, before recording a finding of fabrication
and forgery – Failure to do so on facts, constrains to hold that the
charge of forgery not been proved – Also there are many other
inexplicable peculiarities in the case – Appellant was facing a grave
charge of fabrication of the documents – When charges are grave,
the caution and circumspection that should be exercised by the
authorities should be greater – Charge in the present disciplinary
inquiry, being not established, can have no bearing – Equally,
the submission that the rules provided for a mandatory penalty
of dismissal also does not require further consideration since
the charges themselves have not been established – Impugned
judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of dismissal and the
order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal set aside –
Appellant to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential
benefits. [Paras 36, 41, 43-45]
Case Law Cited
V.M. Saudagar (Dead) through Legal Heirs v. Divisional Commercial
Manager, Central Railway and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2277; Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1986] 2 SCR 957 :
(1986) 3 SCC 454; Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another [2026] 1 SCR 91 : 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 8 – referred to.
List of Acts
Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965.
List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Inquiry Officer; Medical Certificate;
Disputed writing in Medical Certificate; Dismissal from service;
Handwritten medical certificate; Misconduct; Departmental appeal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1560
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2024 of the High Court
for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 40486 of 2022
70 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Sumit
Kumar, Akhilesh Loya, Krishna Kumar Singh.
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Sindoora Vnl.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad dated 12.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.40486 of 2022.
By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of
the appellant and confirmed the order of his dismissal from service.
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. The appellant was recruited as an attender in the Court of Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar on 09.11.1998. According to the
appellant, since he was indisposed with high fever, vomiting and
motion from 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017, he telephonically informed
about his absence to the Office Superintendent.
4. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, by a letter dated
05.08.2017, wrote to the Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar, stating that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent
from 03.08.2017 to 05.08.2017; that he had not applied for any
kind of leave; that his unauthorized absence caused inconvenience
to the Court and that the Court was not able to function properly.
It was requested that action be taken against the individual for his
unauthorized absence.
5. On 07.08.2017, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar,
instructed the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, to initiate
action as per the CCA Rules against the appellant and submit
compliance report.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 71
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
6. On 09.08.2017, an explanation was called for from the appellant. On
22.08.2017, the appellant furnished his explanation stating that on
03.08.2017, he had high fever, vomiting and motion and he consulted
one Dr. Bommaraveni Swamy Mudiraj, a Medical Practitioner at
Manakondur, who treated him and advised him to be admitted in the
hospital; that he was admitted in the said hospital from 03.08.2017
to 07.08.2017 and submitted a certificate issued by the doctor. He
stated that since he was unable to move, he informed the office over
telephone on 03.08.2017 and prayed for mercy by dropping action
against him. Thereafter, he applied for grant of casual leave from
03.08.2017 to 05.08.2017 (both days inclusive) and 07.08.2017 and
with permission to avail public holiday for 06.08.2017.
7. It transpires from the record that after submission of the explanation
and the medical certificate, the appellant requested the Presiding
Officer of the Court to drop further proceedings, and the Presiding
Officer kept the file aside and orally stated to the appellant not to
repeat the same in future. The salary for the period of absence was
deducted.
8. It further transpires from the record that in October, 2017, since the
appellant failed to attend office for 2-3 days, the Presiding Officer of
the Court decided to get a notice issued to Dr. Bommaraveni, whose
purported certificate was produced by the appellant in August, 2017.
It is not clear from the record whether the absence in October, 2017
was also unauthorized since there is no such recording. Nothing is
on record to show as to whether any action was taken against the
appellant for absence in October, 2017. The absence in October,
2017 appears to have acted as a trigger to summon the doctor.
9. On 26.10.2017, after a gap of two months, an explanation was called
for from Dr. Bommaraveni by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar to answer whether the admission slip was issued from
the clinic of the said doctor and, if issued, to appear on 28.10.2017
with complete record of treatment offered to the appellant for the
period from 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017. The doctor was informed that
failure to do so would entail proceedings as per rules. Along with
the notice calling for explanation, the document which the appellant
claimed was the prescription issued by the doctor was annexed.
One Sh. Devaraj, Police Constable, Manakondur P.S. was directed
to cause service of notice on the doctor.
72 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. On 28.10.2017, Dr. Bommaraveni appeared and gave a statement
to the effect that the medical certificate in question was not issued
by him; that he was not authorized to issue such Medical Certificate
certifying admission of the patient and that he has no nursing home
to admit patients. He further added that the Medical Certificate might
have been fabricated by using his old letter pad.
11. In this statement, Dr. Bommaraveni did not state about the appellant
having consulted him and receiving some tablets. This is significant
because in the enquiry proceedings when he was examined as
PW-2, Dr. Bommaraveni did admit that the appellant approached him
and received some tablets though he did not remember the date on
which the appellant approached him.
12. On 15.12.2017, the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, wrote
to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, setting out
the entire background and requested that necessary action be taken
against the appellant. On 03.03.2018, the appellant was served with
the Statement of imputation of misconduct and the Articles of charge.
13. The Statement of imputation sets out that the appellant, in spite of
his explanation being sought, did not submit his explanation resulting
in the deduction of salary for the said period from 03.08.2017 to
07.08.2017 and that the Medical Certificate was submitted only on
22.08.2017. The other background facts were also set out and the
following charges were framed and served on the appellant:-
“ARTICLE-I:-
That you, Sri K. Rajaiah, Office Subordinate, Court of
the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar have remained
absent from attending duty from 3.8.2017 to 7.8.2017
and it is without applying casual leave or without prior
permission of the Officer and it is intentionally, thereby
causing much inconvenience to the day to day office work
and in spite of giving explanation memo, you did not submit
any explanation within the stipulated time, which shows
your gross negligence and dereliction of duties and such
behaviour is of (sic.) unbecoming of a Government servant
much less in Judicial Department, which also amounts to
misconduct and that you behaved in a derogative manner
and you thereby liable for punishment under Rule 20 of
the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 73
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
ARTICLE – II:-
That you, Sri K. Rajaiah, Office Subordinate, Court of
the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar have submitted
explanation on 22.08.2017 with a fabricated Medical
Certificate of Bommanaveni Swamy, Medical Practitioner
stating that you have taken treatment with him, which shows
your gross mischief towards the Court and such behaviour
is of unbecoming of a Government servant much less in
Judicial Department, which also amounts to misconduct
and that you behaved in a derogative manner and you
thereby liable for punishment under Rule 20 of the APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991.”
14. At the enquiry, the appellant though requested for the services of
a lawyer, the same was denied on the ground that the Presenting
Officer was not a legal practitioner. However, permission was
accorded to take the assistance of any other government servant
as per Rule 20(5)(d) of the CCA Rules. From the counter affidavit
of the respondent, it emerges that the appellant told the Inquiry
Officer that he would cross-examine the witnesses himself and will
not take the assistance of anyone since no one was ready to come
forward to help him.
15. During the enquiry, the Presenting Officer examined four witnesses.
PW-1 – V. Radha Krishna Sharma was the Office Superintendent.
He deposed that the salary for the period of absence of the appellant
was deducted on the direction of the Presiding Judge of the Court.
The same was recorded in a note (Ex. P-4) and communicated to
the appellant. He further deposed to the effect that after the appellant
submitted his explanation on 22.08.2017 and on the request of the
appellant to drop further proceedings, the Presiding Officer of the
Court kept the file aside and orally stated to the appellant not to
repeat the same in future. PW-1 deposed that in October, 2017 the
appellant did not attend the office for two days. As explained earlier,
there is nothing on record to show that the absence in October,
2017 was unauthorized nor was this part of the present disciplinary
proceedings.
16. However, what PW-1 further deposed is crucial. It was stated by
PW-1 that the Presiding Officer directed him to issue notice to
Dr. Bommaraveni, who was purported to have issued the Medical
74 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Certificate (Ex. P-7). The doctor appeared before the Presiding
Officer on 28.10.2017 and gave the following statement (Ex. P-9): -
“STATEMENT OF DR. BOMMARAVENI SWAMY
MUDIRAJ, MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
I have received notice from Hon’ble Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar to appear before the court on
28-10-2017 at 10:30 Am, accordingly, I attended before
the court. The Medical Certificate dated 07-08-2017
bearing the name of SAI TEJA CLINIC was confronted
to me. I further submit that the said medical certificate
is not Issued by me. I am not authorized to issue such
Medical Certificate certifying the admission of patient as
In-Patient. In fact, I have no Nursing Home’ to join patients.
The Medical Certificate might have been fabricated by
my old letter pad.
Sd/-
DR. BOMMARAVENI SWAMY MUDIRAJ
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER”
17. PW-1 further deposed that when he approached the Presiding
Officer with a query as to whether pay bill of the appellant had to
be prepared, the Presiding Officer addressed a letter to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, which ultimately resulted in the show
cause notice of 08.02.2018 to the appellant and the initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings. He further deposed that he did not receive
any intimation from the appellant on 03.08.2017 and that he did not
remember whether he received any phone call in the morning from
the appellant with the intimation that the appellant was not feeling
well with a request to convey the same to the Presiding Officer.
18. Dr. Bommaraveni was examined as PW-2 before the Inquiry Officer.
His deposition is crucial. We are conscious of the fact that we
are in a judicial review proceeding against the orders passed in a
disciplinary enquiry. We are setting out the deposition only to take
the deposition as it is and to see whether the charge against the
appellant stood proved. What is crucial to notice in the deposition of
the doctor is his admission that the appellant did approach him and
receive tablets, though he does not remember the date on which
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 75
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
the appellant approached him. The doctor, however, denied having
issued the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7). The deposition is in the
following terms: -
“I am practicing as R.M.P doctor at Manakondur from past
3 years. I have not issued Ex.P7 i.e., medical certificate
dated 07-08-2017 in the name of K.Rajaiah. I am not
authorized to admit the patients as in patients in my clinic.
I own Sai Teja Clinic at Manakondur. The medical shop
owners will provide us the letter heads and the letter
head of Ex.P7 is one of such and I have not issued the
same. Witness is confronted with EX.P7 and witness says
that the signature on Ex.P7 is not of him. Once in another
Court the Officer called me and recorded my statement in
respect of Ex.P7. Once K.Rajaiah approached me and
received some tablets I do not remember the date on
which K.Rajaiah approached me. Somebody took away
blank letter head of mine and fabricated Ex.P7. But I
have not issued Ex.P7 to K.Rajaiah at any point of time.
Cross examination by Sri K. Rajaiah (party in person):-
It is not true to suggest that the handwriting on Ex.P7
is mine and I issued Ex.P7 to K.Rajaiah and now I am
deposing false. Witness is confronted with Ex.P7 and
P9 and posed a question stating that the signature on
Ex.P7 and P9 pertaining to witness is one and the same.
The witness stated that the signature on Ex.P9 is of
him and signature on Ex.P7 do not pertains to him. It
is not true to suggest that as K.Rajaiah is illiterate he
cannot read and write and Ex.P7 was issued by me
and now I am deposing false.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. It is crucial to note that in the cross-examination by the appellant, it
was suggested to the doctor that the signature on Medical Certificate
(Ex. P-7) and Statement of Doctor (Ex. P-9) dated 28.10.2017 were
one and the same. It was also suggested that the witness was
deposing falsely. In the chief-examination, the doctor admitted that
the appellant approached him and received some tablets though
he did not remember the date on which the appellant approached
76 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
him. More importantly, the doctor did not dispute that the letterhead
belonged to him. The doctor did not deny that the rubber stamp on
the Medical Certificate was not his. His explanation was that someone
took away the letterhead and fabricated Ex. P-7. It is also crucial
to note that the doctor on his own did not produce any register in
proof of the date on which the appellant approached and consulted
him. PW-3 was the then Additional Senior Civil Judge and PW-4 was
holding full additional charge of Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court at
the relevant time.
20. The Inquiry Officer found both the charges proved by recording the
following findings: -
“As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 a perusal of Exs.
P.1 to P.7. Ex.Pl is the letter dated 05-08-2017. Ex.P2
is the Official Memorandum dated 07-08-2017. Ex.P3 is
the Explanation Memo dated 09-08-2017. Ex.P4 is the
Office note dated 19-08-2017. Ex.P5 is the Explanation
dated 22-08-2017. Ex.P6 is the four days casual leave
application. Ex.P7 is the medical certificate. Ex.P8 is the
notice to doctor dated 26-10-2017. Ex.P9 is the statement
of medical practitioner. It is crystal clear that Sri K.Rajaiah,
Attender in the Court of Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar i.e., charged employee was absent to his
duties from 03-08-2017 to 07-08-2017 without intimating to
the concerned and due to which inconvenience has been
caused to the official work in the office of Hon’ble Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and further failed to give
explanation within time to the memo served on individual
as per Exs. P10 to Pl7 i.e., Ex.P10 is the order dated 28-
10-2017. Ex.P11 is the letter to Hon’ble Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar dated 15-12-2017. Ex.Pl2 is
the show cause notice dated 08-02-2018. Ex.P13 is the
explanation dated 12-02-2018. Ex.P14 is the letter dated
20-02-2018. Ex.P15 is the proceedings dated 03-03-2018.
Ex.P16 is the letter dated 07-03-2018. Ex.P17 is the
letter dated 22-03-2018. The said Sri K. Rajaiah failed
to disprove the articles of charge framed against him,
thus the allegations leveled against charged employee
i.e., Sri K. Rajaiah in charge No.1 is proved.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 77
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
As per evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. it is crystal
clear that Sri K. Rajaiah, Attender submitted his explanation
i.e., Ex.P5 is the Explanation dated 22-08-2017 and applied
for 4 days causal leave through Ex.P6 and by enclosing
Ex.P7 medical certificate dated 07-08-2017, but P.W.2
categorically stated that Ex.P7 was not issued by him
and Ex.P7 dated 07-08-2017 do not bear the signature of
P.W.2 and K. Rajaiah, Attender once approached P.W.2
and received some tablets and he do not remember the
date on which said K.Rajaiah approached him. P.W.2
categorically stated that somebody took away blank
letter head of P.W.2 and fabricated Ex.P7 and P.W.2
has not issued Ex.P7 to K.Rajaiah at any point of time
and when P.W.2 was confronted with the signatures
on Ex.P.7 and P.9, P.W.2.specifically stated that the
signature on Ex.P.9 is of P.W.2 and the signature on
Ex.P.7 do not pertains to P.W.2. Thus, as the P.W.2 is
appropriate person to state whether Ex.P7 medical
certificate dated 07-08-2017 was issued by P.W.2 to
K.Rajaiah or not and P.W.2 categorically stated that
he has not got issued said Ex.P7. Hence, I can safely
conclude that the said Ex.P7 which is enclosed to
Ex.P6 i.e., application seeking grant of casual leave
from 03-08-2017 to 07-08-2017 is not genuine and not
issued by P.W.2 and Sri K. Rajaiah, Office Subordinate
failed to prove that Ex.P7 is genuine medical certificate
issued by P.W.2. Hence, charge No.2 leveled against Sri
K.Rajaiah, Office Subordinate is proved.
Thus, articles of Charge No.1 and II framed against Sri K.
Rajaiah, office Sub-ordinate in the court of Hon’ble Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar is proved in enquiry. Hence,
submitting the enquiry report accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. After issuance of show cause for imposition of major penalty, by
order dated 13.11.2018, the appellant was dismissed from service.
An appeal filed to the administrative side of the High Court resulted
in a dismissal on 08.01.2021. The appellant’s writ petition challenging
the dismissal has come to be dismissed by the impugned order.
Hence, the appellant is before us by way of appeal by special leave.
78 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:-
22. We have heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Advocate
for the appellant and Ms. Sindoora VNL, learned counsel for the
respondent.
23. Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that
the charges in this case have not been established since the illness of
the appellant and the treatment by the doctor is not in dispute. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that it has not been established
that the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7) was fabricated. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the statement of the doctor recorded on
28.10.2017 was behind the back of the appellant. Lastly, learned Senior
Advocate submitted that the punishment is grossly disproportionate.
24. Ms. Sindoora VNL, learned Advocate, who very ably presented the
case for the respondent, submitted that at the preliminary enquiry it
was established that the certificate purported to have been issued
by Dr. Bommaraveni was not actually issued by him and that the
doctor deposed that the nursing home did not have any provision
for admitting patients. Learned counsel submitted that the findings
of the Inquiry Officer could not be substituted and that court in a
judicial review ought not to function as a court of appeal. All that
the court in judicial review is concerned is whether the inquiry was
held by a competent authority, in accordance with the procedure
prescribed and in consonance with the principles of natural justice
and whether any extraneous considerations or evidence has been
taken into account. According to the learned counsel, none of the
parameters applied to the present case. Learned counsel submitted
that the employee attached to a judicial department must maintain
absolute integrity and discipline.
25. Dealing with the quantum, learned Advocate has submitted that
punishment for forgery has been specifically provided and punishment
ought to be dismissal in accordance with Rule 9 (x) proviso which
reads as under: -
“Provided that in all proved cases of misappropriation,
bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery
and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of
dismissal from service shall be imposed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 79
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
26. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records including the written
submissions filed by the parties. We have also called for and perused
the original file of the disciplinary inquiry.
QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION:-
27. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the appellant
has made out a case for interference with the order passed in the
disciplinary proceedings, as upheld by the High Court?
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:-
28. The primary case against the appellant revolves around the allegation
that the appellant fabricated the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7). The
first charge of submitting a delayed explanation need not detain us
long. We do not find that a delay of thirteen days’ time for furnishing
the explanation of facts is unreasonable. The other facets of the
charge are intrinsically linked to the second charge which we have
discussed hereinbelow.
29. While maintaining the parameters of judicial review, the undisputed
facts, however, need to be set out. The Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7)
is a fully handwritten Certificate which the appellant alleged was
given by Dr. Bommaraveni to him. The fully handwritten certificate
carries the purported signature of PW-2 as well as the rubber stamp
and was also on the letterhead of PW-2.
30. It should also be borne in mind that it is an admitted position that the
appellant had consulted the doctor (PW-2) and the doctor (PW-2)
had given him few tablets though PW-2 says, he does not remember
the date on which that happened. The doctor also admitted that the
letterhead belonged to him. The date on the certificate is 07.08.2017
which was the last day of absence of the appellant. There is no
denial that the rubber stamp on the Medical Certificate was not his.
31. In this scenario, the real question that arises is, whether the Inquiry
Officer was justified in accepting the word of the doctor and rejecting
outright the plea of the appellant to conclude that Ex. P-7 was not
genuine and Ex. P-7 was not issued by PW-2? Should the Inquiry
Officer have verified the disputed writing in Ex. P-7 with the undisputed
signature in Ex. P-9 and/or whether the Inquiry Officer should have
referred the matter to a handwriting expert?
80 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
GRAVER THE CHARGE – GREATER THE NEED FOR CAUTION
AND CIRCUMSPECTION: -
32. Even though it was a case of word against a word, the doctor admitted
that the appellant consulted him. He admitted that the letterhead
belonged to him. He did not dispute about the rubber stamp. He
further admitted that he gave appellant some tablets, however, he
does not remember the date and also stated that someone took
away his blank letterhead and fabricated Ex. P-7 and he has not
issued Ex. P-7 to the appellant at any point of time. The appellant
not only suggested to the doctor that the handwriting was his, but
he also confronted the doctor with Ex. P-9 (the statement given by
the doctor to the Presiding Judge on 28.10.2017) and suggested
that the signature is of one and the same person.
33. The appellant is a Court Attender and PW-2 is a Medical Practitioner.
When the doctor admits having treated the appellant, the least that
was expected from the doctor is to provide the date on which he
treated him to contradict the case of the appellant. Further the Inquiry
Officer ought to have verified the disputed and the undisputed writings
and if any doubt persisted the matter ought to have been referred to
the handwriting expert. We say so because Ex. P-7 is not a printed
form certificate but a fully handwritten certificate.
34. Reference to handwriting experts and examination of handwriting
experts is not a procedure alien to disciplinary inquiries. In V.M.
Saudagar (Dead) through Legal Heirs vs. Divisional Commercial
Manager, Central Railway and Another1, while restoring the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, which interfered with the penalty
of the dismissal and after setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court held as under: -
“17.4 … … No evidence has been adduced to prove the
charge of forgery and only the authenticity of the pass has
been verified by the Enquiry Officer with the statement of
the S.M. Gole, then Office Superintendent Pass Section.
CAT noted that even the alleged forged signature has not
been sent to handwriting expert.”
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2277
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 81
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
35. In a similar case where there was a charge of forgery and the
delinquent denied the charge, this Court in Sawai Singh vs. State
of Rajasthan2, set aside the judgment of the High Court and granted
complete relief to the appellant therein. This Court, speaking through
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was),
made the following telling observations: -
“6. … … Perusal of the enquiry report makes perfunctory
reading — comparing the evidence of Chaturbhuj and
the appellant it is difficult to accept on what basis
the enquiry officer accepted the Chaturbhuj version.
The enquiry officer did not discuss the inherent
improbabilities of the statements of Chaturbhuj which
will be noted later.
12. …..The second charge was about committing
forgery effecting erasion of the word ‘panch’ on the
nomination paper of Shri Chaturbhuj. This allegation
was sought to be proved by the evidence of handwriting
expert. The handwriting expert was not available for
cross-examination on the ground that at that time he
was dead. But if the evidence of handwriting expert
was necessary to prove the guilt of the appellant,
then it was necessary on the part of the department
to adduce evidence to call another handwriting expert
to corroborate their charge.”
[Emphasis supplied]
36. Thereafter, highlighting the need for how investigations to the charges
must be consistent with the requirement of the situation and how
there must be fair play in action where consequences could be loss
of job and loss of livelihood, this Court in Sawai Singh (supra) held
as follows:-
“16. It has been observed by this Court in Surath
Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548]
that charges involving consequences of termination
of service must be specific, though a departmental
2 (1986) 3 SCC 454
82 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
enquiry is not like a criminal trial as was noted by
this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama
Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] and as such there is no
such rule that an offence is not established unless
it is proved beyond doubt. But in a departmental
enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which
nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair
play in action; in respect of an order involving adverse
or penal consequences against an employee, there
must be investigations to the charges consistent with
the requirement of the situation in accordance with
the principles of natural justice insofar as these are
applicable in a particular situation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This holding is extremely vital for the case at hand for the reason
that as was contended by learned Counsel Ms. Sindoora VNL, that
the penalty for a proved charge of forgery is mandatory dismissal
from service. Having failed to verify the disputed and the undisputed
signature, we find that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that Ex. P-7
was not genuine, is perverse and based on no credible evidence.
37. We did not want to stop here. To satisfy ourselves, we called for the
original file of the disciplinary inquiry from the High Court and perused
the writings and signature in Ex. P-7 as well as signature in Ex. P-9.
During the examination of the original file, we also observed that apart
from Ex. P-9, Dr. Bommaraveni (PW-2) had acknowledged receipt of
notice dated 26.10.2017 sent from the office of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge directing him to appear on 28.10.2017.
38. On the reverse side of this notice which is available in the file, Dr.
Bommaraveni had acknowledged the receipt of the notice with his
signature, date and his rubber stamp. The notice dated 26.10.2017
in original has been exhibited as Ex. P-8. Immediately after the
original is a photocopy of the notice carrying the acknowledgement
in the reverse. This document, though not specifically exhibited,
it is the document on which Dr. Bommaraveni acknowledged and
thereafter appeared on 28.10.2017. The original of Ex. P-8 also has
the following endorsement in the bottom.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 83
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
“Through Sh. Devaraj, Police Constable, Manakondur P.S.
with a direction to cause service of the notice to through Dr.
Bommaraveni Swamy Mudiraj and file the acknowledgment
before the undersigned.”
39. What is however crucial is the rubber stamp on Ex. P-7 is identical
with the rubber stamp on the reverse of the copy of the notice dated
26.10.2017.
40. What is also significant is that the two undisputed signatures of Dr.
Bommaraveni, one in exhibit P9 and the other while acknowledging
receipt of notice are themselves not identical, though broadly similar.
The signature on the Ex. P-7 Medical Certificate is also not identical
though broadly similar to what is in the acknowledgement and
what is on Ex. P-9. In this state of affairs, when nothing conclusive
emerges one way or the other, prudence would dictate and common
sense would command that the inquiry officer referred the matter
to a handwriting expert, before recording a finding of fabrication
and forgery. Failure to do so on facts, constrains us to hold that the
charge of forgery has not been proved.
INEXPLICABLE PECULIARITIES:-
41. There are so many other inexplicable peculiarities in this case. When
the appellant absented himself from 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017 and
reported on 08.08.2017, pay was deducted for the period of absence.
The appellant was already made to suffer with loss of pay. Not only
this, there is evidence on record of V. Radha Krishna Sharma (PW-
1), that on the request of the appellant to drop further proceedings
after furnishing explanation on 22.08.2017, the Presiding Officer had
relented and told the appellant not to repeat the same in future and
kept the file aside. What appears to have triggered the reopening of
the issue was the purported absence of the appellant for two days in
October, 2017. It is not the case of the respondent that the absence
in October, 2017 was unauthorized. At this stage, the Presiding Officer
decided to summon the doctor by sending a police constable- Sh.
Devaraj to his clinic. The doctor appeared on 28.10.2017 and gave
a statement that the Medical Certificate was not issued by him. In
this statement, no reference was made about the consultation done
and the medicine given. The statement was also recorded behind
the back of the appellant which the respondent, no doubt, labels
84 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
as a preliminary inquiry. Be that as it may, we need not pronounce
on the validity of the procedure adopted in recording this statement
considering the final decision that we propose to take.
42. What further emerges is that in December, 2017, PW-1 approached
the Presiding Officer of the Court for preparation of pay-bills and
enquired as to whether the monthly pay-bill of the appellant has to
be prepared. At that stage on 15.12.2017, a letter was written by
the Presiding Officer to the Principal District and Sessions Judge
setting out that the action of the appellant amounted to negligence
and dereliction of duties due to unauthorized absence and a request
was made to take necessary action.
PARAMETERS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:-
43. No doubt, as rightly contended by Ms. Sindoora VNL, learned counsel
for the respondent, the parameters for judicial review against orders
passed in disciplinary proceedings are limited. However, it is well
settled that where the findings are based on no evidence a court of
law is perfectly justified in interfering with the orders in disciplinary
proceedings. Recently, this Court in Nirbhay Singh Suliya vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Another3, while interfering with the findings
in a disciplinary proceeding held that if the findings in the enquiry
report are perverse and not supported by the evidence on record,
the Court in judicial review can interfere. This Court held as under: -
“41. The High Court has erred in not interfering with the
order. A valiant attempt was made by Mr. Arjun Garg to
sustain the impugned order by contending that a writ
court or this Court cannot act as an appellate court over
the inquiry report and the only consideration was whether
the inquiry had been fairly conducted. We are unable to
accept the said contention. In our opinion, for the reasons
stated above, the findings in the inquiry report are
perverse and are not supported by the evidence on
record. We make bold to record a finding that on the
available material, no reasonable person would have
reached the conclusion that enquiry officer reached.
3 2026 SCC OnLine SC 8
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 85
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
42. In Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another 9, Saghir Ahmad, J. lucidly explained the principle
thus:-
“51. It was lastly contended by Mr Harish N.
Salve that this Court cannot reappraise the
evidence which has already been scrutinised
by the enquiry officer as also by the Disciplinary
Committee. It is contended that the High Court
or this Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution,
act as the appellate authority in the domestic
enquiry or trial and it is not open to this Court to
reappraise the evidence. The proposition as put
forward by Mr Salve is in very broad terms and
cannot be accepted. The law is well settled
that if the findings are perverse and are not
supported by evidence on record or the
findings recorded at the domestic trial are
such to which no reasonable person would
have reached, it would be open to the High
Court as also to this Court to interfere in the
matter. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. Of Police
[(1999) 2 SCC 10], this Court, relying upon the
earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad v.
State of Bihar [(1978) 3 SCC 366], State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC
1723], Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash
Chand Jain [AIR 1969 SC 983], Bharat Iron
Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel [(1976) 1
SCC 518] as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra v.
Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635] laid down that
although the court cannot sit in appeal over the
findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or
the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry, it
does not mean that in no circumstance can the
court interfere. It was observed that the power
of judicial review available to a High Court as
also to this Court under the Constitution takes
in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the
86 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
courts can interfere with the conclusions reached
therein if there was no evidence to support the
findings or the findings recorded were such as
could not have been reached by an ordinary
prudent man or the findings were perverse.”
(Emphasis supplied)
44. In this case, the appellant was facing a grave charge of fabrication
of the documents. When charges are grave, the caution and
circumspection that should be exercised by the authorities should be
greater. The appellant had joined service in 1998 as an attender. Ms.
Sindoora, learned Counsel, has produced the copies of the service
record of the appellant which shows that in 2011, he was awarded
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.
It is not clear as to what was the charge that led to the penalty but
whatever it is, the charge in the present disciplinary inquiry, being
not established, that can have no bearing. Equally, the argument
of Ms. Sindoora, that the rules provided for a mandatory penalty
of dismissal also does not require further consideration since the
charges themselves have not been established.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:-
45. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court dated 12.02.2024 in WP No.40486 of 2022 and
allow the appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service
dated 13.11.2018 and the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing
the appeal dated 08.01.2021 will all stand set aside. The appellant
shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential
benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since the
non-employment was not due to the appellant’s fault. The order
should be implemented within three weeks from today. The appeal
is allowed. No order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Disciplinary proceedings"Sign in to search