The Quality of Evidence in Internal Disciplinary Inquiries: Key Takeaways from Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling

(Harinie Seenivasan and Arjun Paleri)

The Supreme Court, in February 2026[1], set aside the dismissal of an employee whose departmental inquiry had resulted in a finding of grave misconduct. This judgement is unique as the Court's reasoning did not focus on procedural flaws but on issues with evidence that was considered for establishing the grave misconduct. More specifically, the Court found that the decision rested on material that did not reliably establish the most serious charge against the employee.

What Happened

K. Rajaiah, a court attender at the Telangana High Court, was absent from duty for five days in August 2017. He submitted a handwritten medical certificate on the letterhead of a Registered Medical Practitioner, Dr. Bommaraveni, along with his leave application. The presiding officer at the time deducted his salary for the absence and the matter appeared closed.

Two months later, following a similar absence, the authorities reviewed the certificate that was submitted by Rajaiah in the first instance. They recorded a statement from Dr. Bommaraveni, in which the doctor said he had not issued the certificate and suggested someone may have used a blank letterhead to fabricate it. On the basis of this statement, a departmental inquiry was initiated. Rajaiah was charged with unauthorised absence and submission of a fabricated medical certificate. The inquiry officer found both charges proved and he was dismissed from service.

What the Supreme Court Found

The Court upheld the finding on unauthorised absence. However, on the fabrication charge, the Court found the evidence insufficient and set aside the dismissal. Rajaiah was reinstated with full back pay.

The Court's concern was that the material relied upon to prove it was too weak to sustain a finding of that gravity. The Court, inter alia, discussed the following three key concerns with the evidence:

• Doctor's contradictory testimony: The doctor's own evidence was contradictory. While the doctor denied issuing the medical certificate, he admitted that Rajaiah had visited him and received medication. Although he could not recall the exact date, he did not deny the consultation. This admission, which was directly relevant to the charge, was not addressed in the inquiry officer’s findings

• Lack of Expert Witness: The inquiry officer compared the signatures on the certificate with a known signature of the doctor on a separate document and reached a conclusion visually. For a charge that amounted to forgery, no handwriting or signature expert was brought in. The Court held that a non-expert visual comparison by the inquiry officer was not sufficient to establish fabrication to the standard the seriousness of the charge required.

• Burden of Proof: The inquiry officer's finding was framed in a way that placed the burden on the employee to prove the certificate was genuine, rather than on the employer to prove it was fabricated. The Court took issue with this framing. In a disciplinary inquiry, the burden of establishing the charge lies with the presenting officer and the employer. The employee's failure to disprove a charge is not the same as the charge being proved.

Why This Matters for Employers Conducting Internal Inquiries

Most organisations that run formal disciplinary processes which rightly focus on whether the procedure was followed correctly. While compliance is necessary, this judgement highlights that procedural correctness does not insulate a finding from challenge if the underlying evidence is thin. The standard that the Court applied in this case is not the criminal standard of proof which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it is also not a standard where any material, however vague or second hand, is sufficient. The weight of the evidence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the charge. A charge that, if proved, results in dismissal cannot rest on contradictory witness statements and a non-expert comparison of signatures.

Key Takeaways for Organisations

Given the consistent direction the courts have taken on this, organisations should address the following:

• Treat evidence quality as a separate review step: Before closing an inquiry, the reviewing authority should assess not only whether proper procedure was followed, but also whether each charge is supported by reliable evidence capable of withstanding external scrutiny.

• Ensure charges are framed with specificity: Broad, composite charges make it harder to build a coherent evidentiary record and create risk when courts examine individual findings.

• Match the evidence to the gravity of the charge: The seriousness of the charge along with the nature of the evidence should be considered as a matter of course, not an exception.

• Keep the inquiry officer's role distinct and substantive: The inquiry officer should engage with the evidence on each charge, record reasons for accepting or rejecting it, address contradictions in witness testimony, and produce a finding that can be read and assessed independently.

Internal inquiries carry real consequences for employees. Courts will look at whether those consequences are supported by the record, not just by the process.

Endnotes:

1.  K. Rajaiah v. High Court for the State of Telangana, Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026.