AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
The applicant participated in the direct recruitment examination conducted by the respondents for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for the vacancy year 2011-12 & 2013-14 and, having been declared successful, was thereafter permitted to join service.
Subsequently, certain information was received by the respondents regarding alleged impersonation and other instances of misconduct in connection with the said examination. Upon consideration of the matter, the competent authority decided to initiate an inquiry into the alleged irregularities pertaining to the candidates, including the applicant.
In the course of the inquiry, the OMR sheets and other relevant documents were forwarded to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for its expert opinion. On the basis of the report received from the CFSL, the respondents proceeded against the applicant and a charge memorandum was issued to him.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
Today, When the matter was taken up for consideration on, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the issue raised in the present O.A. already stood settled by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 4260/2024, along with O.A. No. 730/2025 and other connected matters.
The aforesaid batch of matters was decided vide order dated 06.10.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the facts and issues involved in the present matter are substantially similar to those considered and decided in the aforesaid batch of cases and, therefore, the applicant would also be entitled to the same treatment. relevant para of the said decision in OA No. 4260/2024 with OA No. 730/2025 reads as under:-
“10.It is undisputed that the issue involved in the present case is identical to that in O.A. No. 127/2022 and a batch (Supra) decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ahmedabad vide common order dated 04.05.2023. Paras 12 to 13 of the same read as under:-
“12.Hon'ble Allahabad High Court while deciding Writ No.28120/ Ram Vijay Singh & Ors. vs Union of India held that the experts opinion not being conclusive cannot solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection. Hon'ble High Court also referred observation made in another case of Rajesh Kumar as under:-
"Expert opinion is only an opinion and has been considered to be of very weak nature."
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court also referred observation made in the case of Tikkaram vs Doulat Ram as under:-
"Evidence of an expert is only an opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be considered along with other pieces of evidence........ this kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert isusually required to speak, not to facts but to opinions."
In the matter of Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab[AIR1977SC1091]Hon'ble Apex Court held that expert opinion must always be received withgreatcautionandperhapsnonesowithmore caution than the opinion of handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.Thisrulehasbeenuniversallyacted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by Apex Court in Ramchandra vs State [AIR 1957 SC 361] that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon where supported by other items of internal and external evidence. Hon'ble Apex Court terming the evidence of opinion by expert very weak and infirm by nature held that it cannot itself form the basis for a conviction.
13.In view of the above legal position on use of expert opinion, we are of the opinion that the respondent has committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicants solely on the basis of handwriting expert and without conducting any inquiry. Further, the allegations made against the applicants are stigmatic in nature, attracting the penalty of removal and dismissal from service. Therefore, such type of allegations should not be levelled against the applicant in such a casual manner that too without issuing any notice to the applicants for explaining their conduct and defence. Record reveals that there is no other evidence against the applicants in support of the charge levelled against them. The respondent neither investigated itself the allegation against the applicants nor got it investigated through any investigating agency like police. No reason has been assigned for not registering the criminal case for alleged impersonation. As stated earlier, there wasno specific complaint against the applicants. Appointment letters were issued against the applicants since they were not found involved in malpractices. The applicants were not afforded any opportunity before issuing charge sheet to explain their position. The specimen signatures were taken from the applicants not on account of any specific complaint against the applicants. It is relevant to mention here thatatthe time of taking examination one has to prove his identity before entering the examination hall. As mentioned earlier, candidates were required to upload their photo and signature at the time of submitting application form online. In view of the above, the applicants could have been denied entry in the examination hall in case of any doubt regarding their identity. In the present matter, as per contention of the applicant, CCTV cameras were operating at the examination centre and the applicants also demanded the CCTV footage, which however was not supplied to them. The respondents also failed to supply additional documents demanded by the applicants. Vide communication dated 23.12.2020 and 30.06.2021, the respondents mentioned that the defence documents and witnesses were not available with the undersigned. This kind of reply is not acceptable which on the face of it seems to be factually incorrect. The respondent did not issue 'non availability certificate to the applicants before denying the copy of the additional documents. The respondents never said that the demanded documents were irrelevant for defence. The applicants had sought the copies of the some additional documents with a view to establish their presence in the centre at the time of taking examination. Respondents even denied the copy of the attendance sheet, which in our opinion was material in the matter. In view of the above, respondent committed grave error in not providing copies of relevant documents and not permitting defence witnesses on account of which, the defence of the applicants had been prejudiced.
It is also relevant to mention that after issuance of the charge sheet, the applicants had made representations, wherein they raised grievance against the taking of specimen signatures and also questioned the procedure adopted by the respondent in issuing charge sheet against them based on the mismatch of signatures without investigating the matter. However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the representations, appointed the IO and PO, which is also in violation of the principle of service jurisprudence. The respondents were not right in contending that the applicants would get opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them in inquiry. In our considered opinion, if the disciplinary proceeding is permitted to continue despite above said infirmities, then applicants would suffer irreparable loss. The allegation against the applicants are stigmatic in nature.
Therefore they would not be able to get opportunity of obtaining another job till continuation of this inquiry. In addition to it, during continuation of the inquiry, they would have to face mental agony and bad reputation. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the charge memorandum issued against the applicants cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
In the result, while allowing all OAs the charge memorandum impugned in each case is quashed and set aside. Subsequent steps taken pursuant to the charge-sheet are also quashed and set aside. No order as to cost.”
11.The Hon’ble High court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 18023/2023 titled Union of India & Ors. Vs Anil Kumar vide order/judgment dated 05.08.2024 has upheld the common order/judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 127/2022 (Supra). Paras 11.19 to 12read as under:-
“11.19In view of the aforesaid discussion and so. Also the reasonings given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in order passed in Original Application No. 127/2022 and connected matters dated 04-05-2023, does not need any interference. However, the Court may observe that, it is still open for the Department to institute any proceedings against the respondents, however, the same should be inc on formity of the directions ofof the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in its Order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016 and allied matters.
11.20Before parting, the Court may observe that bynot observing the directions of the Apex Court by the Department regarding 'Investigation and adopting a complete different track of 'Specimen Signature', the Department has allowed the persons responsible formal practice to go scot-free. It is expected that the Department adopts corrective measures to trace out the real culprits to prevent such malpractice in public employment.
2.In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference. Hence, all the petitions are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.”
12.Admittedly, the order/judgment of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad has attained finality after dismissal of the relevant SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is binding forus. So far the judgment of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Lala Thakur (Supra) is concerned, we find that the facts before the Tribunal were not the same as in the case in hand before us. Moreover, the order/judgment of the Tribunal is dated 21.02.2024. It is neither the case of the learned counsel for the respondents nor we find that the order/judgment dated 04.05.2023 of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 127/2022 was brought to the notice of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal. In view of the fact that the common order/judgment of the Tribunaldated04.05.2023inO.A.NO.127/2022(Supra) being prior to that of Patna Bench of the Tribunal and that too upheld by a detailed judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and further the SLP against the same having been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and such judgment has not been even brought to the notice of the Patna Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Patna Bench judgment being referred to by the respondents is of no help to the respondents. Furthermore, as far as the judgment of the Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Ajay Kumar (Supra) is concerned, the same is also found to be indifferent facts and circumstances and not the case in hand before us. Accordingly, the same is also not found to be of any assistance toto the respondents. In view of the aforesaid the O.As are allowed with the following orders:-
(i)The impugned charge memo(s) and subsequent order(s), proceeding(s), if any, pursuant to such charge memo(s) are set aside.
(iiii)The applicant(s) shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
(iii)However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
13.A copy of this order be placed on the files of all the O.As. Associated M.As, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
We have perused the aforesaid decision. We note that the Tribunal has considered the issue in detail and has also taken into account the orders/judgments passed by various Courts, including the High Courts of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dealing with the same or similar issues arising out of the same examination.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the decision already rendered by a Coordinate Bench on the issue, we find no reason to take a different view in the present matter.
Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, the present O.A. is also disposed of in terms of the directions contained therein. In view of the above the present OA also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.