2025 (2) TMI 1525 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Forgery in disciplinary proceedings - fabricated the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7) - judicial review of departmental inquiry - need for handwriting expert in disputed signature cases - principles of natural justice in disciplinary enquiries - prudence, caution and circumspection in grave charges - Correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana - HELD THAT:- 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 herein below. While maintaining the parameters of judicial review, the undisputed facts, however, need to be set out. The Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7) is a fully handwritten Certificate which the appellant alleged was given by Dr. Bommaraveni to him. The fully handwritten certificate carries the purported signature of PW-2 as well as the rubber stamp and was also on the letterhead of PW-2. 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. 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. 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. What is also significant is that the two undisputed signatures of Dr. Bommaraveni, one in exhibit P9 and the other while acknowledging receipt of notice are themselves not identical, though broadly similar. The signature on the Ex. P-7 Medical Certificate is also not identical though broadly similar to what is in the acknowledgement and what is on Ex. P-9. In this state of affairs, when nothing conclusive emerges one way or the other, prudence would dictate and common sense would command that the inquiry officer referred the matter to a handwriting expert, before recording a finding of fabrication and forgery. Failure to do so on facts, constrains us to hold that the charge of forgery has not been proved. Judicial review of departmental inquiry - principles of natural justice in disciplinary enquiries - 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 [2026 (1) TMI 1565 - SUPREME COURT], 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. In this case, the appellant was facing a grave charge of fabrication of the documents. When charges are grave, the caution and circumspection that should be exercised by the authorities should be greater. The appellant had joined service in 1998 as an attender. Ms. Sindoora, learned Counsel, has produced the copies of the service record of the appellant which shows that in 2011, he was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is not clear as to what was the charge that led to the penalty but whatever it is, the charge in the present disciplinary inquiry, being not established, that can have no bearing. Equally, the argument of Ms. Sindoora, that the rules provided for a mandatory penalty of dismissal also does not require further consideration since the charges themselves have not been established. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court 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. 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.