2026 INSC 142 2026 INSC 142 Page 1 of 30

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

confirmed the order of his dismissal from service.

Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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,

thus 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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

Another

1, 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 21 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

Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

2, 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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

Singh Suliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

3,

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 28 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 29 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 30 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;

11

th

February, 2026