The Supreme Court has set aside the dismissal of a Court Attender employed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, ruling that the charge of fabricating a medical certificate was not established. The Bench, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, held that in cases involving grave charges like forgery, the inquiry officer must exercise greater caution and circumspection, including referring disputed documents to handwriting experts.
Case Background
The appellant, K. Rajaiah, was recruited as an attender in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in 1998. He was absent from duty between August 3, 2017, and August 7, 2017, citing high fever, vomiting, and motion. On August 22, 2017, he submitted an explanation along with a medical certificate issued by Dr. Bommaraveni Swamy Mudiraj. Initially, his salary for the period was deducted, and the Presiding Officer orally warned him not to repeat the conduct.
However, following a subsequent absence in October 2017, the Presiding Officer issued a notice to the doctor to verify the certificate. The doctor gave a statement claiming he had not issued the certificate and that his letterhead might have been fabricated. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on two charges: unauthorized absence and submission of a fabricated medical certificate.
The Inquiry Officer found both charges proved, leading to the appellant’s dismissal from service on November 13, 2018. His departmental appeal was dismissed, and the High Court for the State of Telangana subsequently dismissed his Writ Petition on February 12, 2024.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued that the charges were not established as the factum of illness and treatment by the doctor was not in dispute. He contended that the fabrication of the medical certificate (Ex. P-7) was not proved and that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate.
Ms. Sindoora VNL, learned counsel for the High Court, submitted that the preliminary inquiry established that the certificate was not issued by the doctor. She argued that the scope of judicial review is limited and that an employee of the judicial department must maintain absolute integrity. She further contended that under the rules, a proved charge of forgery mandates the penalty of dismissal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the original file of the disciplinary inquiry. The Court noted “inexplicable peculiarities” in the case, pointing out that the doctor (PW-2) admitted during the inquiry that the appellant had approached him and received tablets, and that the letterhead belonged to him. The doctor, however, claimed he did not remember the date and alleged that someone had taken his blank letterhead.
Standard of Inquiry and Role of Handwriting Experts
Addressing the procedural aspects of the disciplinary inquiry, the Bench emphasized that referring matters to handwriting experts is a valid and necessary procedure in such inquiries. The Court observed:
“Reference to handwriting experts and examination of handwriting experts is not a procedure alien to disciplinary inquiries.”
The Court stressed that the gravity of the charge dictates the level of care required in the investigation. Citing precedents, the Bench held:
“Graver the charge greater the need for caution and circumspection… Reference to handwriting experts and examination of handwriting experts is not a procedure alien to disciplinary inquiries.”
The Bench observed that the Inquiry Officer failed to verify the disputed handwriting or refer the matter to a handwriting expert, despite the document being fully handwritten.
Parameters for Judicial Review under Article 226
The Court also clarified the scope of interference in disciplinary matters under Article 226 of the Constitution. While acknowledging that the parameters for judicial review against orders passed in disciplinary proceedings are limited, the Bench asserted that courts are not helpless when findings are baseless.
“However, where the findings are based on no evidence a court of law is perfectly justified in interfering with the orders in disciplinary proceedings… if the findings in the enquiry report are perverse and not supported by the evidence on record, the Court in judicial review can interfere.”
The Court termed the Inquiry Officer’s finding that the certificate was not genuine as “perverse and based on no credible evidence.”
Findings from the Original Record
Upon perusing the original disciplinary file, the Court noted that the rubber stamp on the disputed medical certificate was identical to the rubber stamp on an acknowledgement receipt signed by the doctor on a different notice. The Court observed:
“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… 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.”
Conclusion and Decision
The Supreme Court held that the charge of forgery was not proved. Regarding the contention that the rules mandate dismissal for forgery, the Court noted that since the charge itself was not established, the rule had no bearing.
The Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court dated February 12, 2024, the order of dismissal dated November 13, 2018, and the Appellate Authority’s order.
The Court directed:
“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.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
- Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 11965 of 2024)
- Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
