IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22048 of 2008 Between: T. Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Deputy General Manager & Competent Authority, Hyderabad Regional Office, Personnel Department, 7th Floor Moghuls Court, Bhasheerbagh, Hyderabad & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mavidi Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri V. Srinivas This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22048 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the original pay slips to the forensic experts for verification of the original signatures of the officers concerned during the domestic enquiry in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Mavidi Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, three charges were framed. In charge No.2, the accusation against the petitioner is that apart from defaulting in repaying loans to three financial institutions, he produced salary confirmation/undertaking letters of the employer duly certified by the authorized official of the company and that according to the said letters, the petitioner was drawing towards net amount of salaries, which were far less than the net salary of the petitioner, evident from the pay slips. The petitioner requested respondent No.2 to send the salary confirmation/undertaking letters to the forensic science laboratory for the expert’s opinion as to whether the same were signed by the authorized officers of the company or not. The said request having been turned down by respondent No.2, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the signatures on the salary confirmation/undertakings are denied by the authority concerned, who issued the said documents, it is necessary for the petitioner to get the opinion of the expert. He submitted that for obtaining such opinion, the original documents, which are in the custody of respondent No.1, are required to be sent by it to the expert. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that there is no charge of fabrication of the documents and that whether the salary confirmation/undertaking letter produced by the petitioner was fabricated or not was not the issue, but the issue, which is the subject matter of the enquiry, is whether the petitioner’s conduct in producing salary confirmation/undertaking certificates, which do not conform to the actual state of things relating to his drawing the net salary constituted misconduct or not. He therefore submitted that there was no need for making an enquiry as to whether the signatures on the abovementioned documents were of the official of the company or the petitioner fabricated the same. He also submitted that the enquiry officer has already submitted his report and the disciplinary authority will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that in the nature of the charges framed against the petitioner, it is not necessary to elicit expert’s opinion on the question whether the salary confirmation/undertaking letters produced by the petitioner were signed by the authorized officer or not. As noted above, there is no accusation against the petitioner that he either forged the signatures or fabricated the documents. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he may be found guilty of either fabrication or forgery does not appear to have any basis. In the light of the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the scope of enquiry will not be concerned with the alleged fabrication/forgery of the documents, it is not necessary for the petitioner to seek expert opinion with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the salary confirmation/undertaking letters. The scope of the charges is confined to whether the net salary drawn by the petitioner for the months of April 2002, December 2002 and October 2003 is in conformity of the confirmation/ undertaking letters or not. If it is found that there is no discrepancy between the amounts mentioned in the salary confirmation/undertaking letters and the net salary actually drawn, the petitioner will be entitled for exoneration. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.28704 and 28705 of 2008 and WVMP.No.3513 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.04.2009 ES