ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quan..Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quantum of compensation – Requirement of proof – Remand limited to quantification – Award of ₹2 crores set aside. In earlier round of litigation, deficiency in service stood upheld by this Court and matter was remitted only on question of quantum with specific direction that quantification must be based on material evidence and not on mere asking. After remand, complainant filed affidavit producing photocopies of documents to substantiate enhanced claim. Commission again awarded ₹2 crores with interest. Held, once remand was confined to computation based on evidence, burden lay on complainant to produce reliable and cogent material establishing actual loss suffered. In absence of such proof, award of ₹2 crores was unjustified. Compensation restricted to ₹25 lakhs already released. (Paras 7, 18, 22, 23, 24)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quan...: advocatemmmohan Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quantum of compensation – Requirement of proof – Remand limited to quantificat...

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – Quantum of compensation – Requirement of proof – Remand limited to quantification – Award of ₹2 crores set aside.

In earlier round of litigation, deficiency in service stood upheld by this Court and matter was remitted only on question of quantum with specific direction that quantification must be based on material evidence and not on mere asking. After remand, complainant filed affidavit producing photocopies of documents to substantiate enhanced claim. Commission again awarded ₹2 crores with interest. Held, once remand was confined to computation based on evidence, burden lay on complainant to produce reliable and cogent material establishing actual loss suffered. In absence of such proof, award of ₹2 crores was unjustified. Compensation restricted to ₹25 lakhs already released. (Paras 7, 18, 22, 23, 24)

---

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Procedure before Commission – Applicability of Evidence Act – Principles of natural justice – High-value claims require credible proof.

Though strict provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to proceedings under the 1986 Act, the Commission is bound to follow principles of natural justice. Where claim for compensation runs into crores of rupees, authenticity and reliability of material produced must be established. Mere filing of photocopies, especially when specifically denied by opposite party, without examining authors or proving genuineness, is insufficient to sustain award of substantial damages. (Paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 22)

---

Damages – Requirement of causal nexus – Haircut on 12.04.2018 – Alleged loss of employment, modelling assignments and film offers – No proof of linkage.

Complainant relied on photocopies of emails, modelling certificates, alleged film proposals and medical certificate to claim loss of corporate employment and modelling opportunities. Some documents were prior to date of alleged deficiency; others did not disclose financial particulars; payslips showed continued employment before and after incident. No material established that haircut dated 12.04.2018 resulted in loss of job, assignments or income. Causal connection between deficiency and claimed financial loss not proved. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22)

---

Damages – Award cannot be based on conjectures – Multi-crore claim – Requirement of trustworthy and reliable evidence.

Compensation cannot be awarded on presumptions, conjectures or general discussion. For claim running into crores, trustworthy and reliable evidence quantifying actual loss is essential. Commission failed to assess how complainant suffered loss to extent of ₹2 crores. General observations regarding trauma cannot substitute proof. (Paras 22, 23)

---

Result – Appeal partly allowed – Compensation reduced.

Impugned order modified. Amount of compensation restricted to ₹25 lakhs already released pursuant to earlier direction of this Court. (Paras 23.1, 24)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where deficiency in service is established but the matter is remitted solely for quantification of compensation, the complainant must substantiate the claim by reliable, credible and legally sustainable evidence demonstrating actual loss and a clear causal nexus between the deficiency and the alleged damage. Even though consumer fora are not strictly bound by the Evidence Act, they are obligated to adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot award substantial or multi-crore compensation on the basis of unproved photocopies, speculative assertions or generalized claims of trauma. In absence of cogent proof of financial loss attributable to the deficiency, the award must be confined to a reasonable amount supported by the material on record. (Paras 7, 18–23)

Hindu Law — Joint Hindu Family — Coparcenary — Existence of ancestral nucleus — Burden of proof — Once income-yielding ancestral property is established, burden shifts to party asserting self-acquisition. Alienation by Karta — Sale in favour of one coparcener — Legal necessity must be strictly proved — Vague recitals insufficient. Guardian’s sale of minor’s property — Court permission not conclusive — Surrounding circumstances can be scrutinised. Will — Suspicious circumstances — Thumb impression though testator habitually signed — Execution 72 hours before death — Failure to dispel suspicion — Will invalid. Concurrent findings of fact — Supreme Court reluctant to interfere — Limited modification upheld.

Hindu Law – Joint Hindu Family – Partition – Nucleus – Burden of Proof

Joint family property – Existence of income-yielding ancestral property – Shift of burden – Self-acquisition not proved – Concurrent findings affirmed.

Where existence of ancestral properties (Item Nos. 14 & 15) was admitted and revenue records (Exs. B-201 to B-206) evidenced continuous cultivation and irrigation facilities, the Court held that a joint family nucleus capable of yielding income stood established. Acquisitions made during subsistence of joint status would be presumed joint unless the person asserting self-acquisition proves independent source. Mere proof of some independent earnings is insufficient without clear nexus between such earnings and specific acquisitions.
(Paras 29–31)

---

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Partition – No prior severance in status

Separate enjoyment, installation of irrigation facilities, and independent borrowings do not by themselves establish partition. Clear intention to sever joint status must be proved. In absence of mutation entries, division in status, or documentary evidence of partition, joint status continues.
(Para 32)

---

Hindu Law – Alienation by Karta – Legal Necessity – Item-wise scrutiny

Alienations by Karta in favour of one coparcener must be justified by proof of legal necessity. General recitals are insufficient. Courts must undertake item-wise examination. Alienations supported by evidence of necessity upheld; others not binding on coparceners. Protection granted to establish actual medical expenses at final decree stage.
(Para 33)

---

Guardian’s Sale – Court Permission – Validity examined

Sale of minor’s property pursuant to court permission requires scrutiny of surrounding circumstances and application of sale consideration. Where inconsistencies found in recitals and discharge of debts not satisfactorily proved, alienation not binding. First Appellate Court’s correction justified.
(Para 34)

---

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Thumb impression instead of signature – Execution shortly before death – Finality

Will dated 24.11.1989 executed three days prior to death held surrounded by suspicious circumstances:

• Testator accustomed to signing but affixed thumb impression,

• Execution 72 hours prior to death,

• Scribed by close relative,

• Scribe’s presence doubtful.

Rejection of Will by Trial Court having attained finality, Appellant cannot reopen issue.
(Para 35)

---

Civil Procedure – Impleadment at belated stage – Procedural discipline

Where share already represented and no evidence of collusion shown, impleadment at belated stage rightly refused to prevent unsettling proceedings which had otherwise attained finality.
(Para 36)

---

Appellate Jurisdiction – Concurrent findings – Limited interference

High Court exercised restraint; excluded Item Nos. 66, 74 and portion of Item 36 from partition as exclusive property of D2. Except to limited modification, concurrent findings upheld. No ground for interference under Article 136.
(Paras 37–39)

---

Result

Civil Appeals dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Para 39)

 Hindu Law — Joint Hindu Family — Coparcenary — Existence of ancestral nucleus — Burden of proof — Once income-yielding ancestral property is established, burden shifts to party asserting self-acquisition.

Alienation by Karta — Sale in favour of one coparcener — Legal necessity must be strictly proved — Vague recitals insufficient.

Guardian’s sale of minor’s property — Court permission not conclusive — Surrounding circumstances can be scrutinised.

Will — Suspicious circumstances — Thumb impression though testator habitually signed — Execution 72 hours before death — Failure to dispel suspicion — Will invalid.

Concurrent findings of fact — Supreme Court reluctant to interfere — Limited modification upheld.

---

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The dispute concerned 79 items of agricultural properties situated in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

Genealogy (Admitted)

Common ancestor: Pallikoodathan
Three sons:

• Chidambaram

• Sengan

• Natesan

The core dispute arose between:

• Duraisamy (Plaintiff)

• Dorairaj (D2/Appellant)
  Sons of Sengan.

---

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

• Suit O.S. No. 99 of 1987 for partition.

• Claimed 1/4th share.

• Pleaded properties were:

  • Ancestral, or

  • Acquired from income of ancestral lands (joint family nucleus).

• Alleged no prior partition.

---

DEFENCE OF APPELLANT (D2)

• Majority of properties were:

  • Self-acquisitions of Sengan, or

  • His own independent purchases.

• Claimed independent income as contractor/businessman.

• Asserted alienations by Sengan were valid and binding.

• Relied upon alleged Will dated 24.11.1989.

---

COURTS BELOW

Trial Court (1992)

• Granted 1/4th share with exclusions.

First Appellate Court (1995)

• Modified decree — Plaintiff entitled to 5/16th share.

High Court (2009)

• Confirmed 5/16th share.

• Excluded:

  • Item 74,

  • Item 66,

  • 4 cents in Item 36.

• Rejected Will.

• Scrutinised alienations item-wise.

---

CORE ISSUES 

1. Whether suit properties were joint family properties?

2. Whether existence of ancestral nucleus was proved?

3. Whether alienations by Karta were binding?

4. Whether Will dated 24.11.1989 was valid?

5. Whether concurrent findings warranted interference?

---

 ANALYSIS

1️⃣ Joint Family Nucleus & Burden of Proof

The Court relied on:

• Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango

• Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal (1976 MLJ)

Principle reaffirmed:

Mere existence of joint family is insufficient.
However, once ancestral property yielding income is shown, burden shifts to person asserting self-acquisition.

Here:

• Items 14 & 15 admitted ancestral.

• Revenue records showed cultivation, wells, pump sets.

• Income-yielding nucleus established.

• Appellant failed to discharge burden of proving exclusive source.

---

2️⃣ Independent Income of Sengan & D2

Court observed:

• Sengan had some independent earnings.

• But mere existence of income does not negate joint family contribution.

• D2 was student till 1966 — claim of substantial savings doubtful.

Findings were factual and well-reasoned.

---

3️⃣ Alienations by Karta

Legal position:

• Alienation must be for legal necessity or benefit of estate.

• Sales in favour of one coparcener scrutinised strictly.

Courts below:

• Upheld some sales.

• Rejected others lacking proof of necessity.

• Allowed D2 to establish medical expenses in final decree stage.

Supreme Court approved this calibrated approach.

---

4️⃣ Guardian Sale (Ex. B-2)

Though court permission existed:

• High Court examined surrounding inconsistencies.

• Found Trial Court had accepted transaction mechanically.

• First Appellate Court correction upheld.

Principle: Court permission is not conclusive if circumstances suspicious.

---

5️⃣ Will dated 24.11.1989 (Ex. B-200)

Suspicious circumstances noted:

• Executed 3 days before death.

• Thumb impression though testator habitually signed.

• Scribe was close relative.

• Doubts regarding presence of scribe (election duty).

Additionally:

• Rejection of Will not properly challenged earlier.

• Attained finality.

Supreme Court upheld rejection.

---

6️⃣ Prior Partition — Not Established

Separate enjoyment, borrowings, irrigation facilities:

• Do not amount to partition.

• Clear intention to sever required.

No such evidence existed.

---

7️⃣ Limited Relief Granted by High Court

Properties purchased from third parties:

• Item 66

• Item 74

• Part of Item 36

Rightly excluded from partition.

---

PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED

1. Existence of income-yielding ancestral property shifts burden.

2. Self-acquisition must be clearly proved.

3. Alienation by Karta to coparcener strictly scrutinised.

4. Suspicious Will must be proved beyond doubt.

5. Concurrent factual findings rarely disturbed.

---

CONCLUSION

Supreme Court held:

• High Court judgment well-reasoned.

• No perversity or legal error.

• Civil Appeals dismissed.

• No costs.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Scope — Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact at threshold — Prima facie cause of action sufficient. Section 47 CPC — Scope of objections in execution — Executing Court cannot decide independent challenge to underlying family arrangement/partition deed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Part III (Sections 61–74) — Conciliation Award — Requirements — Authentication under Section 73(4) — Whether document qualifies as Award is triable issue. Constructive Res Judicata — Not attracted where earlier proceedings expressly reserved liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law. Fraud, coercion, undue influence in family arrangements — Cannot be dismissed summarily without trial.

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Scope — Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact at threshold — Prima facie cause of action sufficient.

Section 47 CPC — Scope of objections in execution — Executing Court cannot decide independent challenge to underlying family arrangement/partition deed.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Part III (Sections 61–74) — Conciliation Award — Requirements — Authentication under Section 73(4) — Whether document qualifies as Award is triable issue.

Constructive Res Judicata — Not attracted where earlier proceedings expressly reserved liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Fraud, coercion, undue influence in family arrangements — Cannot be dismissed summarily without trial.

---

FACTUAL MATRIX

Two branches of a wealthy business family fell into dispute regarding partition of vast assets.

• A document styled as “Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai Pathiram” (KBPP) dated 31.12.2018 recorded division of assets.

• A subsequent document dated 02.01.2019 was projected by one group as a Conciliation Award under the:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The opposing group alleged:

• KBPP executed under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation.

• The 02.01.2019 document was fabricated later to give the KBPP the status of an Award.

• No conciliation under Part III (Sections 61–74) was ever conducted.

---

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Attempt to initiate arbitration under Section 11 failed.

2. Execution proceedings initiated treating 02.01.2019 as Award executable under Section 36.

3. Objections filed under Section 47 CPC.

4. Separate civil suit filed challenging:

   • Validity of KBPP.

   • Alleged Conciliation Award.

5. Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

6. High Court affirmed rejection.

7. Present appeals before Supreme Court.

---

CORE QUESTIONS

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action?

2. Whether suit was barred by law, abuse of process, or constructive res judicata?

3. Whether objections under Section 47 CPC barred independent civil suit?

---

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS

1️⃣ Distinction Between KBPP and Alleged Award

The Court held:

• Challenge to KBPP (coercion, undue influence, inequity) is distinct from challenge to Award (fraud, fabrication).

• These issues require evidence and cannot be summarily rejected.

The High Court erred in:

• Treating KBPP and 02.01.2019 document together as automatically constituting a Conciliation Award.

• Assuming waiver of statutory requirements under Part III of the Act.

---

2️⃣ Requirements Under Part III of 1996 Act

Under Sections 61–74:

• Settlement must follow statutory conciliation procedure.

• Settlement Agreement must be authenticated by Conciliator (Section 73(4)).

• Only then does it attain status under Section 74.

The Court noted serious factual disputes:

• Some parties were allegedly abroad at time of execution.

• Alleged Conciliation Award signed only by conciliator.

• No documentary substantiation of conciliation process.

These issues require trial.

---

3️⃣ Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Scope

Under:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order VII Rule 11 permits rejection only if:

• No cause of action.

• Suit barred by law.

• Other statutory defects.

The Court held:

Allegations of coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation in family partition cannot be brushed aside at threshold.

Trial Court wrongly reasoned that coercion requires “threat at knifepoint”.

Family dynamics may involve subtle dominance and influence — matters requiring evidence.

---

4️⃣ Section 47 CPC — Limited Scope

Executing Court can determine:

• Whether decree is executable.

It cannot determine:

• Independent challenge to validity of underlying family arrangement/partition deed.

Hence, filing suit alongside Section 47 objection was not abuse of process.

---

5️⃣ Constructive Res Judicata — Not Applicable

Earlier proceedings:

• Rejected arbitration.

• Rejected strike-off of execution.

• Expressly reserved liberty to pursue remedies “in accordance with law”.

Therefore:

No bar of constructive res judicata.

---

FINDINGS

The Court held:

• Plaint discloses real cause of action.

• Issues raised are triable.

• Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 was “egregiously erroneous”.

• Suit must proceed to trial.

---

DIRECTIONS

• Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside.

• Plaint restored.

• Suit to be tried along with Section 47 objections before Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.

• Observations are prima facie and will not bind final adjudication.

• Plea of constructive res judicata cannot be raised again.

---

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION ON ARBITRATION

The Court suggested:

If respondents withdraw reliance on KBPP and 02.01.2019 documents, parties may agree to fresh arbitration de hors the contentious documents.

Court clarified:

• Arbitration possible.

• Not mediation (which earlier failed).

---

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

This judgment clarifies:

1. Courts must be cautious in rejecting plaints in complex family partition disputes.

2. Family arrangements alleging coercion require trial.

3. Conciliation Award status under Part III cannot be presumed.

4. Section 47 CPC is not a substitute for independent civil remedy.

5. Constructive res judicata cannot override express liberty granted earlier.

Constitution of India — Article 131 — Original jurisdiction — Inter-State river water dispute — Pennaiyar River — Suit between riparian States maintainable. Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Sections 3 & 4 — Failure of negotiation process — Mandatory duty of Central Government to constitute Tribunal — ‘Shall’ in Section 4 imposes obligation. Negotiation at ministerial level unsuccessful — Central Government required to issue notification constituting Water Disputes Tribunal within fixed timeline. Court declines to adjudicate merits — Dispute referred for statutory adjudication — All issues left open before Tribunal.

 Constitution of India — Article 131 — Original jurisdiction — Inter-State river water dispute — Pennaiyar River — Suit between riparian States maintainable.

Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 — Sections 3 & 4 — Failure of negotiation process — Mandatory duty of Central Government to constitute Tribunal — ‘Shall’ in Section 4 imposes obligation.

Negotiation at ministerial level unsuccessful — Central Government required to issue notification constituting Water Disputes Tribunal within fixed timeline.

Court declines to adjudicate merits — Dispute referred for statutory adjudication — All issues left open before Tribunal.

---

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Parties

• Plaintiff: Tamil Nadu

• Defendant No. 1: Karnataka

• Defendant No. 2: Union of India

River in Dispute

Pennaiyar River — an inter-State river flowing through Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

---

PLAINTIFF’S GRIEVANCE

Tamil Nadu invoked Article 131 seeking:

• Declaration that Karnataka’s construction of check dams/diversion structures was illegal.

• Permanent injunction restraining further construction.

• Direction to ensure natural flows into Tamil Nadu.

• Mandatory direction to Union of India to act on request for intervention.

Tamil Nadu relied upon the 1892 Agreement between the erstwhile Madras and Mysore States, asserting that prior consent of the lower riparian State was mandatory before undertaking upstream works.

---

PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS

1. Suit filed in 2018.

2. Interim relief rejected (2019) as 75% construction completed.

3. Liberty granted to invoke Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

4. Tamil Nadu filed complaint under Section 3 of the Act.

5. Negotiation process initiated by Central Government.

6. Multiple meetings held at official and ministerial levels.

7. No consensus reached.

8. Tamil Nadu reiterated demand for Tribunal.

9. Negotiation process postponed indefinitely (Affidavit dated 07.10.2025).

---

CORE LEGAL QUESTION

When negotiation under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act fails, is the Central Government bound to constitute a Tribunal under Section 4?

---

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Under:

Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956

• Section 3: State may request Central Government to refer dispute.

• Section 4: If Central Government forms opinion that dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it shall constitute a Tribunal.

---

SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Court relied on:

T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India

Held therein:

• “May” in draft replaced with “shall” in enacted Section 4.

• Constitution of Tribunal becomes mandatory once negotiation fails.

The Court observed:

• Negotiations attempted at multiple levels.

• No amicable resolution.

• Tamil Nadu unequivocally demanded Tribunal adjudication.

• Ministerial process indefinitely deferred.

Therefore:

A stage had been reached where the Central Government must be held to have formed the opinion that negotiation has failed.

---

HOLDING

The Court directed:

• Union of India to issue notification in Official Gazette.

• Constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal.

• Complete this within one month.

The suit was disposed of with all issues left open before the Tribunal.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where statutorily mandated negotiations under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act fail to produce consensus between riparian States, the Central Government is under a mandatory obligation under Section 4 to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal. The word “shall” admits of no discretion once the statutory conditions are satisfied.

---

SIGNIFICANCE

This judgment reinforces:

• Federal dispute resolution mechanism under Article 131.

• Mandatory nature of Section 4 of the 1956 Act.

• Limited judicial role once statutory forum is triggered.

• Deference to specialized adjudicatory mechanism.

• Strengthening of cooperative federalism within constitutional structure.

The Court consciously refrained from adjudicating merits of water allocation, leaving all substantive questions to the Tribunal.

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.