Allegation of Fabricated Medical Certificate Not Proved Without Expert Evidence: Supreme Court

The term "Dismissal From Service" effects the life of not just the individual but the whole family, one such matter was taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court. The attender of the High Court was dismissed from service on the allegation that the attender committed forgery, where there were inconsistencies in the Doctor's testimony. The Apex court rules in favour of attender and held that the allegation of fabricated Medical Cerfiticates are not proved without expert's advice.

Background: The appellant, K. Rajaiah, was recruited as a court attender in 1998 and served for nearly two decades before facing disciplinary action which arose following a five-day absence in August 2017 due to severe illness and after resuming duty, he submitted an explanation and a handwritten medical certificate issued by an RMP doctor, Dr. Bommaraveni. the Presiding Officer initially relented and only deducted salary for the period of absence.

However, the matter was reopened two months later following a brief two-day absence in October 2017 and the authorities summoned the doctor, who denied issuing the certificate and stated he had no nursing home to admit patients.

The appellant was then charged with gross negligence and submitting a fabricated document, leading to his dismissal from service in 2018. The High Court of Telangana upheld the dismissal, prompting this appeal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal and ordering the appellant’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, identified several procedural and evidentiary lapses that rendered the dismissal legally unsustainable:

The Apex Court emphasized that when an employee faces a grave charge like forgery—which carries a mandatory penalty of dismissal—the need for caution and circumspection is significantly higher, and requires an 'Expert Evidence' in Forgery Charges.

Finding the inconsistencies in the Doctor's testimony, the Apex Court noted that during the enquiry, the doctor admitted that the appellant had indeed consulted him and received medicine, though he claimed not to remember the date. Furthermore, the doctor admitted the letterhead belonged to him.

The Court further perused the original file and found that the rubber stamp used on the disputed medical certificate was identical to the one the doctor used to acknowledge the court's notice. therefore, the Inquiry Officer should have referred the document to a handwriting expert instead of relying solely on the word of the doctor against the employee.

Drawing on precedents like Sawai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, 1986 and Nirbhay Singh Suliya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that judicial review is justified when findings are based on "no credible evidence" or are "perverse", and concluded that no reasonable person would have reached the conclusion of forgery given the admitted consultation and the identical rubber stamps.

Additionally, the Apex Court questioned the "inexplicable peculiarities" of the case, noting that the appellant had already suffered salary deduction and been orally warned. The sudden decision to reopen the matter and summon the doctor via a police constable, triggered by a subsequent brief absence, appeared irregular to the Court.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of a court attender accused of submitting a forged medical certificate. The Court held that in cases of grave charges like forgery, authorities must exercise greater caution and seek expert handwriting analysis rather than relying on the contradictory testimony of a medical practitioner.

CORAM: JUSTICE K. V. VISWANATHAN AND JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI.