High Court dismissal for forged medical certificate set aside; employee to be reinstated with arrears

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vipul M. Pancholi heard an appeal against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Telangana dated 12.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.40486 of 2022, challenging the dismissal of a court attender for alleged unauthorized absence and for submitting a purportedly fabricated medical certificate.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order and the disciplinary order of dismissal dated 13.11.2018, and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Court held that the finding of fabrication was unsupported by credible evidence and that greater caution was required when a gravamen of forgery was alleged. The Court noted that the doctor admitted treating the appellant and that the letterhead and rubber stamp were not controverted, and concluded that 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.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court directed that the appellant be reinstated “forthwith with all consequential benefits including all arrears of salary and emoluments since the non-employment was not due to the appellant’s fault,” to be implemented within three weeks.

Background The appellant, K. Rajaiah, joined as an attender in 1998 and was absent from duty from 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017 citing fever and hospitalization. He telephoned the office and later (on 22.08.2017) produced a handwritten medical certificate said to be from Dr. Bommaraveni Swamy Mudiraj and applied for casual leave; salary for the period had been deducted. After an unrelated absence in October 2017, the Presiding Officer summoned the doctor, who on 28.10.2017 stated that he had not issued the certificate and that his old letterhead might have been misused. At departmental enquiry Article I charged unauthorized absence and Article II alleged submission of a fabricated medical certificate. The Inquiry Officer accepted the witnesses’ testimony and concluded both charges proved; the appellant was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the dismissal.

On review, the Supreme Court emphasised the limits of judicial review but held that where findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence the Court could interfere. The Court surveyed authorities including V.M. Saudagar and Sawai Singh on the need for care when forgery was alleged and observed that handwriting comparison or expert examination is a recognised and often necessary step. Noting that the doctor admitted treatment and ownership of the letterhead but did not fix dates and that the rubber stamp matched other documents, the Court found the Inquiry Officer’s outright rejection of the certificate without expert verification unsustainable. The Court therefore concluded that the charge of forgery was not proved and allowed the appeal, setting aside the disciplinary orders and directing reinstatement with arrears; no costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 142; Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No.11965 of 2024) Case Title: K. Rajaiah Versus The High Court for the State Of Telangana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sindoora VNL, Advocate