Forged medical certificate finding set aside for inadequate evidence, and dismissal from service could not stand.

A disciplinary finding of forgery was held unsafe in judicial review where the inquiry relied on the doctor's denial without testing the disputed handwriting against admitted signatures or obtaining expert evidence. The core allegation was fabrication of a medical certificate, and the Court treated the evidence as insufficient for so grave a charge. Mere delay in giving the explanation was found insignificant. As the finding that the certificate was not genuine was perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, the dismissal from service could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary finding that the appellant fabricated the medical certificate was sustainable in judicial review and whether the dismissal from service could be upheld.

Analysis: The charge of mere delay in furnishing the explanation was held to be insignificant. The core allegation was fabrication of the medical certificate. The record showed that the appellant had consulted the doctor, the doctor admitted that the letterhead belonged to him and that the appellant received tablets, while the certificate itself was a fully handwritten document. The inquiry officer accepted the doctor's denial without verifying the disputed writing against admitted signatures or referring the matter to a handwriting expert. In a grave charge of forgery, the evidentiary scrutiny had to be more exacting, and the failure to take such steps rendered the finding unsafe. The finding that the certificate was not genuine was therefore treated as perverse and unsupported by credible evidence.

Conclusion: The disciplinary finding of forgery was not proved and the dismissal could not be sustained; the appellant succeeded.

---