Handwriting authenticity central to disciplinary review; absent expert comparison, forgery finding overturned and dismissal set aside.
Where disciplinary dismissal rested on alleged fabrication of a handwritten medical certificate, the court applied the limited but substantive scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings and held that findings must rest on adequate evidentiary foundation and not be perverse. The Inquiry Officer accepted the medical practitioner's denial without comparing disputed and undisputed writings or referring the central handwriting issue to an expert; given the gravity of employment loss and only broad similarity between writings, the forgery finding lacked adequate proof and the disciplinary conclusion was set aside.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary findings and the resulting dismissal for alleged fabrication of a medical certificate are liable to be interfered with in judicial review.
Analysis: The enquiry turned on disputed handwriting and authenticity of a fully handwritten medical certificate. Relevant legal framework includes the limited but substantive scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, the requirement that findings must be supported by evidence and not be perverse, the application of principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, and the established practice of referring disputed handwriting to an expert where necessary to resolve a crucial factual controversy. On the facts, the medical practitioner admitted treating the employee, acknowledged ownership of the letterhead and rubber stamp, but denied issuing the certificate; the undisputed writings and the disputed certificate were not conclusively identical and showed only broad similarity. The Inquiry Officer accepted the practitioner's denial without verifying disputed and undisputed writings or referring the issue to a handwriting expert despite the gravity of the forgery allegation. Precedents require greater caution where loss of employment is at stake and support referral to expert examination when handwriting authenticity is central. In these circumstances the finding of fabrication lacks adequate evidentiary foundation and is thereby perverse.
Conclusion: The disciplinary findings are interfered with and set aside; decision in favour of Appellant.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
