Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 142
2026 INSC 142
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.11965 of 2024)
K. Rajaiah …Appellant(s)
Versus
The High Court for the State
Of Telangana …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.02.11
16:47:34 IST
Reason:
confirmed the order of his dismissal from service.
Page 1 of 30
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
Page 2 of 30
the appellant and submit compliance report.
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
Page 3 of 30
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
Page 4 of 30
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.
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
Page 5 of 30
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
Page 6 of 30
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.
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
Page 7 of 30
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
Page 8 of 30
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 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
Page 9 of 30
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 the
appellant approached him. The doctor, however, denied
Page 10 of 30
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
Page 11 of 30
(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
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
Page 12 of 30
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,
t hus the allegations leveled against charged employee i.e.,
Sri K. Rajaiah in charge No.1 is proved.
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
Page 13 of 30
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.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: -
22. We have heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned
Senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sindoora VNL,
Page 14 of 30
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
Page 15 of 30
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)
26. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records
Page 16 of 30
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
Page 17 of 30
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
Page 18 of 30
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?
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.
Page 19 of 30
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
1
Another , 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
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2277
Page 20 of 30
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.”
35. In a similar case where there was a charge of forgery
and the delinquent denied the charge, this Court in Sawai
2
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , 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]
2
(1986) 3 SCC 454
Page 21 of 30
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
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
Page 22 of 30
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
Page 23 of 30
thereafter appeared on 28.10.2017. The original of Ex. P-8
also has the following endorsement in the bottom.
“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
Page 24 of 30
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
Page 25 of 30
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 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.
Page 26 of 30
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
3
Singh Suliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another ,
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
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 8
Page 27 of 30
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 .
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
Page 28 of 30
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 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
Page 29 of 30
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.
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
……….........................J.
[ VIPUL M. PANCHOLI ]
New Delhi;
th
11 February, 2026
Page 30 of 30
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 142
2026 INSC 142
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.11965 of 2024)
K. Rajaiah …Appellant(s)
Versus
The High Court for the State
Of Telangana …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.02.11
16:47:34 IST
Reason:
confirmed the order of his dismissal from service.
Page 1 of 30
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
Page 2 of 30
the appellant and submit compliance report.
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
Page 3 of 30
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
Page 4 of 30
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.
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
Page 5 of 30
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
Page 6 of 30
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.
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
Page 7 of 30
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
Page 8 of 30
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 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
Page 9 of 30
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 the
appellant approached him. The doctor, however, denied
Page 10 of 30
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
Page 11 of 30
(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
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
Page 12 of 30
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,
t hus the allegations leveled against charged employee i.e.,
Sri K. Rajaiah in charge No.1 is proved.
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
Page 13 of 30
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.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: -
22. We have heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned
Senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sindoora VNL,
Page 14 of 30
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
Page 15 of 30
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)
26. We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records
Page 16 of 30
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
Page 17 of 30
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
Page 18 of 30
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?
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.
Page 19 of 30
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
1
Another , 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
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2277
Page 20 of 30
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.”
35. In a similar case where there was a charge of forgery
and the delinquent denied the charge, this Court in Sawai
2
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan , 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]
2
(1986) 3 SCC 454
Page 21 of 30
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
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
Page 22 of 30
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
Page 23 of 30
thereafter appeared on 28.10.2017. The original of Ex. P-8
also has the following endorsement in the bottom.
“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
Page 24 of 30
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
Page 25 of 30
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 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.
Page 26 of 30
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
3
Singh Suliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another ,
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
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 8
Page 27 of 30
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 .
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
Page 28 of 30
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 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
Page 29 of 30
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.
……….........................J.
[ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]
……….........................J.
[ VIPUL M. PANCHOLI ]
New Delhi;
th
11 February, 2026
Page 30 of 30