In a significant ruling on disciplinary proceedings within the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the dismissal of a court attender from Telangana, holding that the charge of fabricating a medical certificate was not proved with credible evidence.
The bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment on February 11, 2026, allowing the appeal filed by K. Rajaiah and directing his reinstatement with full benefits.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
K. Rajaiah was appointed as an attender in 1998 in the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. In August 2017, he remained absent for five days, claiming he was suffering from high fever, vomiting, and motion. He later submitted a handwritten medical certificate issued in the name of a local doctor, Dr. Bommaraveni Swamy.
Initially, his salary for the period of absence was deducted. According to records, the Presiding Officer orally cautioned him and kept the matter aside.
However, in October 2017, after Rajaiah was absent again for two days, the earlier medical certificate came under scrutiny. The doctor was summoned and stated that he had not issued the certificate and was not authorized to admit patients in his clinic.
A departmental inquiry followed. Rajaiah was charged with unauthorized absence and with submitting a fabricated medical certificate. The Inquiry Officer held both charges proved, and in November 2018, he was dismissed from service. His appeal before the administrative side of the Telangana High Court failed. A writ petition was also dismissed in February 2024.
Rajaiah then approached the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Court’s Observations
The central issue before the Court was whether the medical certificate had indeed been fabricated.
The bench noted that while the doctor denied issuing the certificate, he admitted that Rajaiah had consulted him and received medicines. The letterhead used in the certificate belonged to the doctor, and the rubber stamp was not disputed.
Importantly, the certificate was fully handwritten.
The Court questioned whether the Inquiry Officer was justified in accepting the doctor’s denial without further verification. “When nothing conclusive emerges one way or the other, prudence would dictate… that the inquiry officer referred the matter to a handwriting expert,” the bench observed .
The judges pointed out that the signatures on different documents were “not identical though broadly similar.” In such circumstances, they held that concluding forgery without expert examination was unsafe.
Referring to earlier rulings, the Court emphasized that even though disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials, findings must be supported by credible evidence. Where findings are “perverse and not supported by the evidence on record,” courts can interfere in judicial review .
The bench also remarked that when the charge is grave - such as forgery, which carries mandatory dismissal under service rules - “greater caution and circumspection” is required.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Peculiarities Noted by the Bench
The Court found several aspects of the case troubling.
First, Rajaiah had already suffered salary deduction for his absence. Second, there was evidence that the Presiding Officer had initially decided to drop further proceedings after accepting his explanation.
It appeared that the matter was revived months later after another brief absence in October 2017 - even though there was no clear record showing that this later absence was unauthorized.
The statement of the doctor denying the certificate was recorded before formal disciplinary proceedings began, and without Rajaiah being present. Although the Court did not rule directly on the validity of this preliminary step, it took note of the sequence of events.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Conviction After Finding Serious Gaps in Trial
Decision
After examining the original disciplinary file, including the disputed documents and signatures, the Supreme Court concluded that the forgery charge had not been proved.
The finding of fabrication, the bench held, was “perverse and based on no credible evidence” .
Accordingly, the Court:
- Set aside the Telangana High Court’s judgment dated February 12, 2024.
- Quashed the dismissal order dated November 13, 2018.
- Set aside the appellate order dated January 8, 2021.
- Directed that Rajaiah be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.
- Ordered implementation within three weeks.
“The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs,” the bench concluded .
Case Title: K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026
Decision Date: 11 February 2026
