K. RAJAIAH versus THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 11-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 68 : 2026 INSC 142
K. Rajaiah 
v. 
The High Court for the State of Telangana
(Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026)
11 February 2026
[K.V. Viswanathan* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the appellant made out a case for interference 
with the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, as upheld 
by the High Court.
Headnotes†
Service law – Dismissal from service – Fabrication of 
documents – Appellant-court attender remained absent from 
his duties, and subsequently produced handwritten medical 
certificate issued by a doctor – Doctor on verification denied 
having issued the medical certificate, though admitted that 
the appellant had approached him and received some tablets 
but he did not remember the date of treatment – Charges of 
misconduct proved in the disciplinary proceedings and the 
appellant was dismissed from service, later upheld in the 
departmental appeal – High Court also upheld the order of 
dismissal – Correctness:
Held: Parameters for judicial review against orders passed in 
disciplinary proceedings are limited – However, where the findings 
are based on no evidence a court of law perfectly justified in 
interfering with the orders in disciplinary proceedings – Having failed 
to verify the disputed and the undisputed signature, the finding of 
the Inquiry Officer that the medical certificate was not genuine, 
is perverse and based on no credible evidence – Signature on 
the Medical Certificate also not identical though broadly similar 
to what is in the acknowledgement and on the statement given 
by the doctor to the Presiding Judge – When nothing conclusive 
emerges one way or the other, prudence would dictate and common 
sense would command that the inquiry officer referred the matter 
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
69
K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana
to a handwriting expert, before recording a finding of fabrication 
and forgery – Failure to do so on facts, constrains to hold that the 
charge of forgery not been proved – Also there are many other 
inexplicable peculiarities in the case – Appellant was facing a grave 
charge of fabrication of the documents – When charges are grave, 
the caution and circumspection that should be exercised by the 
authorities should be greater – Charge in the present disciplinary 
inquiry, being not established, can have no bearing – Equally, 
the submission that the rules provided for a mandatory penalty 
of dismissal also does not require further consideration since 
the charges themselves have not been established – Impugned 
judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of dismissal and the 
order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal set aside – 
Appellant to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential 
benefits. [Paras 36, 41, 43-45]
Case Law Cited
V.M. Saudagar (Dead) through Legal Heirs v. Divisional Commercial 
Manager, Central Railway and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 
2277; Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1986] 2 SCR 957 : 
(1986) 3 SCC 454; Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh and Another [2026] 1 SCR 91 : 2026 SCC OnLine 
SC 8 – referred to.
List of Acts
Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965.
List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Inquiry Officer; Medical Certificate; 
Disputed writing in Medical Certificate; Dismissal from service; 
Handwritten medical certificate; Misconduct; Departmental appeal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1560  
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2024 of the High Court 
for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP No. 40486 of 2022
70
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Sumit 
Kumar, Akhilesh Loya, Krishna Kumar Singh.
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Sindoora Vnl.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment 
of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana 
at Hyderabad dated 12.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.40486 of 2022. 
By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of 
the appellant and confirmed the order of his dismissal from service.
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3.	
The appellant was recruited as an attender in the Court of Additional 
Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar on 09.11.1998. Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.