Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Charge of fabrication of medical certificate — Handwritten document — No handwriting expert examination — Finding based solely on doctor’s denial — Perverse finding — Interference in judicial review justified. Judicial Review — Scope — Findings based on no evidence or perverse appreciation — Court can interfere even in disciplinary matters. Forgery — Graver the charge, greater the need for caution — Failure to compare disputed and admitted signatures or refer to expert — Charge not proved. Punishment — Mandatory dismissal for forgery under rules — Not attracted when charge itself not established — Reinstatement with full consequential benefits.

 Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Charge of fabrication of medical certificate — Handwritten document — No handwriting expert examination — Finding based solely on doctor’s denial — Perverse finding — Interference in judicial review justified.

Judicial Review — Scope — Findings based on no evidence or perverse appreciation — Court can interfere even in disciplinary matters.

Forgery — Graver the charge, greater the need for caution — Failure to compare disputed and admitted signatures or refer to expert — Charge not proved.

Punishment — Mandatory dismissal for forgery under rules — Not attracted when charge itself not established — Reinstatement with full consequential benefits.

---

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• Appellant appointed as Court Attender in 1998.

• Absent from duty: 03.08.2017 to 07.08.2017.

• Submitted explanation with medical certificate dated 07.08.2017.

• Salary for absence period deducted.

• Matter initially closed by Presiding Officer.

• Later, doctor summoned; denied issuing certificate.

• Disciplinary proceedings initiated.

• Charges:

  1. Unauthorized absence.

  2. Submission of fabricated medical certificate.

Appellant dismissed from service on 13.11.2018.
High Court upheld dismissal.
Appeal before Supreme Court.

---

CORE ISSUE

Whether the finding that the appellant fabricated the medical certificate was legally sustainable and whether dismissal from service was justified.

---

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS

I. Charge of Unauthorized Absence

• Explanation submitted within 13 days.

• Salary already deducted.

• Matter originally kept aside by Presiding Officer.

• Not independently serious enough to warrant dismissal.

Court did not dwell much on Charge I.

---

II. Alleged Fabrication of Medical Certificate

This was the central issue.

Key Undisputed Facts:

• Doctor admitted appellant consulted him.

• Doctor admitted giving tablets.

• Certificate was:

  • Fully handwritten.

  • On doctor’s letterhead.

  • Bearing doctor’s rubber stamp.

• Doctor denied signature on certificate.

• Doctor claimed blank letterhead may have been misused.

---

III. Crucial Defect in Inquiry

The Court emphasized:

When forgery is alleged, caution must be greater.

The Inquiry Officer:

• Did not compare admitted and disputed signatures properly.

• Did not refer matter to handwriting expert.

• Relied solely on doctor's oral denial.

The Supreme Court examined original records and noted:

• Rubber stamp identical.

• Even admitted signatures of doctor were not identical among themselves.

• Disputed signature broadly similar.

In such circumstances, the Court held:

Failure to seek expert opinion rendered the finding perverse.

---

PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN

“Graver the charge — greater the need for caution and circumspection.”

When dismissal is mandatory upon proof of forgery, the standard of care in establishing forgery must be correspondingly higher.

A disciplinary authority cannot:

• Conclude forgery merely on oral denial,

• Ignore available objective verification tools,

• Avoid handwriting expert examination in a handwritten document case.

---

SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW REITERATED

The Court reaffirmed:

• Judicial review is limited.

• However, where findings are:

  • Based on no evidence, or

  • Perverse, or

  • Such that no reasonable person would reach,

Courts can interfere.

Reliance placed on settled principles from service jurisprudence.

---

PECULIAR FACTUAL ASPECTS NOTED

The Court highlighted:

• Initial closure of matter.

• Salary deduction already imposed.

• Doctor’s earlier statement recorded behind appellant’s back.

• October absence (trigger for reopening) not shown as unauthorized.

• Sequence of events indicated irregular handling.

---

FINAL DECISION

1. High Court judgment set aside.

2. Dismissal order dated 13.11.2018 set aside.

3. Appellate order dated 08.01.2021 set aside.

4. Appellant reinstated forthwith.

5. All consequential benefits granted.

6. Full arrears payable.

7. Implementation within 3 weeks.

Appeal allowed. No costs.

---

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT

This decision is important for:

• Service law jurisprudence on forgery charges.

• Standards of proof in disciplinary proceedings.

• Requirement of expert evidence in handwriting disputes.

• Reinforcement of proportionality and fairness.

• Protection against perverse findings.

It establishes that even within limited judicial review, courts will intervene when disciplinary findings are unsupported by reliable evidence.