Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
K. V. VISWANATHAN, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ
K. Rajaiah – Appellants
Versus
The High Court for the State of Telangana – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.11965 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-02-2026
Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorized absence from duty – Charge of forgery has not been proved – Appellant was facing a grave charge of fabrication of documents – When charges are grave, caution and circumspection that should be exercised by authorities should be greater – Inquiry Officer ought to have verified disputed and undisputed writings and if any doubt persisted matter ought to have been referred to Handwriting Expert – Charges have not been established – Where findings are based on no evidence court of law is perfectly justified in interfering with orders in disciplinary proceedings – Order of dismissal from service and order of Appellate Authority dismissing appeal set aside – Appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since non-employment was not due to appellant’s fault. (Paras 33, 40, 43, 44 and 45)
Facts of the case:
After issuance of show cause for imposition of major penalty, by order dated 13.11.2018, appellant was dismissed from service. An appeal filed to the administrative side of High Court resulted in a dismissal on 08.01.2021. The appellant’s writ petition challenging dismissal has come to be dismissed by impugned order. Hence, appellant is before this Court by way of appeal by special leave.
Findings of Court:
What appears to have triggered reopening of issue was the purported absence of appellant for two days in October, 2017. It is not the case of respondent that absence in October, 2017 was unauthorized.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The exact paragraph that states the main ratio is paragraph (!) , which discusses the necessity of proper verification of signatures and handwriting in forgery cases and states that findings unsupported by credible evidence are perverse and liable to be set aside.
JUDGMENT :
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.
(u)FACTS OF THE CASE: -(/u)
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 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 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 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 i
Dismissal – When charges are grave, caution and circumspection that should be exercised by authorities should be greater.
The submission of false medical certificates by a government employee constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal from service under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Disciplinary proceedings based solely on expert opinion without supporting evidence violate natural justice and cannot sustain dismissal.
Charge memoranda alleging impersonation solely on uncorroborated handwriting expert opinion quashed; weak expert evidence requires substantive corroboration, prior opportunity; fresh proceedings post....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
