TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement given by the doctor to the Presiding Judge on 28.10.2017) and suggested that the signature is of one and the same person. 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 (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2277), 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ening 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 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easonable 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 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) ....