The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a Subordinate Officer of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who had been dismissed from service on a charge of forgery relating to a medical certificate and ordered his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and emoluments, the period of non-employment not being attributable to any fault of the appellant, within three weeks, after considering the records of the departmental inquiry, the findings of the disciplinary authority, and the legal principles governing proof of misconduct in departmental proceedings. The background of the matter reveals that the appellant, who was posted as an Office Subordinate in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, had remained absent without authorization from duty for a period from August 3, 2017 to August 7, 2017. In explanation of his unauthorized absence from duty, the appellant submitted a medical certificate purportedly issued by a medical practitioner, Dr. Bommaraveni Swamy Mudiraj, which stated that the appellant had been hospitalized due to high fever, vomiting, and loose motions during the period in question. Following the submission of the medical certificate along with the appellant’s explanation, the departmental authorities issued a notice to the doctor to appear before the Sessions Court with a complete record of the treatment offered to the appellant, including records of hospital admission and treatment, and the doctor acknowledged receipt of the notice by signing it, stamping it with his rubber stamp, and dating it, thereby confirming receipt of the notice. However, when the doctor appeared and was examined, he stated that he did not issue the medical certificate in question, that he did not have a nursing home, and that the medical certificate appeared to be fabricated. On the basis of the doctor’s statement, the disciplinary inquiry officer found that the appellant had submitted a fabricated medical certificate to justify his unauthorized absence, which constituted misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a government servant, and recorded a finding that the medical certificate was not genuine and that the appellant had thereby committed forgery and dishonesty.
Following the departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority held that the charges relating to misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a government servant were proved, and consequently dismissed the appellant from service on November 13, 2018. The appellant’s departmental appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected by the appellate authority on January 8, 2021. The appellant challenged both the order of dismissal and the order rejecting his departmental appeal before the Telangana High Court. The High Court upheld the departmental inquiry and the consequential orders, stating that the inquiry had been conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and that the findings of the disciplinary authority were supportable on the basis of the evidence on record, including the doctor’s denial of having issued the medical certificate.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment dated February 12, 2024, and the affirmation of the departmental inquiry and the orders of dismissal, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, seeking to set aside the High Court’s decision and the orders of dismissal on the ground that the departmental inquiry had been defective, the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse, and the charge of forgery had not been proved on the basis of credible and conclusive evidence. A bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, considered the matter, including the records of the inquiry, the original medical certificate, the authenticated documents filed by the parties, the acknowledgement of the notice by the doctor, and the undisputed fact that the appellant had consulted the doctor during the relevant period for medical treatment. The Court observed that the crucial issue in the case was not merely the doctor’s denial of having issued the medical certificate, but whether the inquiry officer was justified in accepting the doctor’s version without further verification of the disputed writing on the medical certificate through appropriate expert analysis, such as handwriting examination, particularly when there was evidence to show that the doctor had indeed treated the appellant and that the rubber stamp used on the notice and on the disputed medical certificate were broadly similar.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court noted that while the doctor denied issuing the medical certificate, he admitted having treated the appellant, and did not dispute the authenticity of the rubber stamp on the letterhead. The bench observed that, despite the contradictory evidence, the inquiry officer had failed to refer the matter to a handwriting expert or to undertake stricter procedural safeguards that could have clarified whether the signature on the medical certificate was genuinely that of the doctor. The Court pointed out that in cases involving grave charges such as forgery, where the consequence of a finding of guilt would be dismissal from service and loss of livelihood, greater caution, care, and adherence to procedural fairness and evidentiary standards are required. The bench stated that in a situation where the evidence was, to some extent, in conflict, and where the doctor acknowledged treatment of the appellant during the relevant period, prudence would have dictated that the inquiry officer refer the signature on the disputed medical certificate for expert examination rather than accept the doctor’s general denial without further inquiry.
The Supreme Court observed that the inquiry officer’s conclusion that the medical certificate was fabricated and that the appellant had committed forgery was perverse and not borne out by credible and conclusive evidence on record. The Court held that the finding of forgery, which formed the basis for the disciplinary action leading to dismissal, had not been proved to the required standard in departmental proceedings. In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s affirmation of the departmental inquiry and the orders of dismissal could not be sustained, as the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent finding of misconduct were fundamentally flawed on account of failure to adhere to proper procedure and to apply the requisite standard of proof. The Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and quashed the orders of dismissal dated November 13, 2018 and the appellate authority’s order dated January 8, 2021, which had upheld the dismissal.
In directing the reinstatement of the appellant, the Supreme Court ordered that he be reinstated in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits, including all arrears of salary and emoluments, since the period of non-employment was not due to any fault of the appellant. The bench emphasized that the reinstatement order, including consequential benefits and arrears, was warranted because the dismissal had been set aside on the ground that the charges of misconduct and forgery were not proved in the disciplinary inquiry consistent with the requirements of law. The Court gave a timeline of three weeks for compliance with the reinstatement order, directing that the appellant should be placed back in service and all monetary benefits, including arrears of salary for the period during which he remained out of employment as a result of the impugned dismissal, should be paid to him.
The decision reflects the Supreme Court’s approach to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against government servants adhere to strict procedural standards and evidentiary norms, particularly when the outcome of such proceedings could result in the loss of employment and associated rights. In this case, the Court’s judgment underscores the importance of fair inquiry, proper verification of disputed evidence such as medical certificates, and the necessity of applying greater care and precaution in departmental proceedings, where a finding of forgery carries serious consequences. The Supreme Court’s order to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits serves to restore his service status and financial entitlements, acknowledging that the disciplinary action taken against him was based on findings that could not be sustained on the evidence as required by law.
Thus, after reviewing the record, including the proceedings before the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the High Court, the Supreme Court found that the appellant’s dismissal from service was not justified in law, set aside the impugned orders of dismissal, and directed his reinstatement with full benefits, thereby providing relief to the appellant, who had been removed from service on a charge that was ultimately found not to have been proved in departmental proceedings consistent with the standards of fairness and due process required by law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.