Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Sandeep Mahinder Siingh vs Posts on 31 January, 2025
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
Original Application No. 180/2023
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025
Reserved on: 15.01.2025
Pronounced on: 31.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Sandeep
Son of Mahinder Singh
D.O.B 08.06.1990. Age 33 yrs.
Postal Assistant, Surat Textile Market S.O.
Attached to NDC Surat H.O. surat
...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M B Navani)
VS
1. Union of India,
Notice to be served throughThe Secretary,
Ministry of communications and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, (Recruitment Division),
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Gujarat circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad - 380 001.
3. The Post Master General,
South Gujarat Region, Vadodara - 390 002.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Surat Division, Surat - 395 001.
5. Shri A. H. Chavda, manager (BD)
& Inquiry Officer, Surat - 395 001.
6. Shri V. J. Jadav, ASP West Sub Dn.
& Presenting Officer, Surat - 395 001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. R. R. Patel)
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 2
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking following reliefs:-
"8 (A) Quashing and setting aside the charge memorandum dated 13.02.2023 at Annexure A/1. Appointment of IO and PO vide Order dated 10.05.2023 annexed at Annexure A-2 & A-3 be please cancelled in pursuant to order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2023.
(B) Permanently restraining the respondents from proceeding with the inquiry initiated against the applicant pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 13.02.2023 in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal by allowing OA No. 127 of 2022 and other OAs vide order dated 04.05.2023.
(C) Passing any other appropriate order.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in brief are as under:-
2.1 Vide notification dated 21.02.2014, Department Post i.e., respondent no.1 herein invited applications from eligible persons for filling up a large number of vacancies for the post of Postal Assistant (PA) , Sorting Assistant (SA) under direct recruitment examination for the year 2013-14 in respect to various Postal Department in 22 Circles in the country including the vacancies to be filled up in Gujarat Circle i.e., 36 post in Regional Offices, 127 posts in Rail Mail Service and 51 in other offices of Gujarat Circle.
2.2 In response to the said vacancy notification dated 21.02.2014 the applicant herein had applied for direct recruitment exam for the post of postal circle i.e., Gujarat Postal Circle.(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 3
2.3 To handle the entire process of conducting all the examination i.e., Aptitude Test and Computer/Typing Test prescribed for the direct recruitment to post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, from the stage of printing of application form till the preparation of merit list, the respondent had engaged M/s. CMC Limited (herein after referred as the CMC).
2.4 The examination was conducted by M/s. CMC Limited on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The said examination was comprised of two parts. The paper- 1 is Aptitude Test whereas the paper-2 is Computer/Typing Test. The candidates who had qualified in the Aptitude Test were allowed to take part in Computer/typing test in terms of 11.1 of the notification-2014.
2.5 Each candidate was allotted with a hall ticket having the photo affixed on it. Said M/s. CMC Limited had also used the help of examination supervisors in each and every examination hall and after thorough checking the candidates were allowed to sit for the examination. The examination/test held under the supervision of the Invigilator.
On both the occasions, during the Aptitude Test and Computer/Typing Test, the said M/s. CMC Limited had done Videography and had also installed the CCTV Camera to monitor and record the examination process.
2.6 The applicant was accordingly allowed to participate in the said examination process including the aptitude test and computer/typing test.
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 42.7 Thereafter, the applicant was selected for the post of Postal Assistant and was allotted to Nanpura HO, Surat Division vide letter dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure A/7 refer).
2.8 In the meantime, during the procedure of pre-
appointment/appointment formalities including the process of verification of documents, the result of examination of Direct Recruitment of PA/SA for the year 2013-14 was cancelled by the office of Director General vide letter dated 11.12.2015 and accordingly informed the CPMGs of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand Circles about cancellation of Direct Recruitment examination, 2013-14 for the post of PA/SA.
2.9 In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 11.12.2015, the office of Chief Postmaster General, Khanpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Circle, vide letter dated 21.12.2015 had ordered :
(i) to cancel the PA/SA Direct Recruitment Exam 2013 & 2014 held for Gujarat circle vacancies.
(ii) it was directed that all the candidates selected and allotted in the Divisions/Units/CO/RO and who had not joined the Department have to be informed of the cancellation of the said examination at their last known address.
(iii) In case of candidates, who have joined the Department and are serving in temporary service against any of the said vacancies in the circle, orders under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 have to be issued to them by the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 5 appointing authorities concerned immediately and that all immediate terminations under sub rule (1) of the Rule 5 of the Rules ibid entitles the temporary staff pay and allowances of one month in lieu of the period of notice.
(iv) Further, the appointing authorities were directed to take all necessary action in pursuance of the above orders and issue compliance order immediate implementation of the above order to Circle office positively by 23.12.2015.
In compliance of said letter/order dated 21.12.2015, the services of the applicant were terminated by the respondents.
2.10 Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the aforesaid examination, a large number of OAs were filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal quashed the order of cancellation of examinations and further directed the department to probe into the matter by a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner. The respondents being aggrieved with the said directions and orders passed by this Tribunal had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing various Special Civil Applications.
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide common judgment dated 16.08.2016, allowed all SCAs filed by the respondents resulting in cancellation of examination.
2.11 Being aggrieved by judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, several petitions, being Civil Appeal No.10513/2016, titled Manu Tomar vs. (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 6 Union of India and others, and other connected petitions, came to be filed before Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court. Vide a common Judgment dated 13.07.2017 in the said petitions passed following order:-
"Permission to file SLP granted. Delay condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/petitioner and we have also heard learned Additional Solicitor General who has been instructed by officers of the concerned Department.
We have also perused the report of the Vigilance Committee set up by the Department.
We find from a perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committees that the entire examination was not necessarily vitiated but some persons who are suspected of having used malpractices in the examination of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in five circles, viz., Uttarkhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat have actually been identified. The respondents will proceed against them in accordance with law but since they are quite a few in number, a formal show cause notice is dispensed with. However, they may be personally called and explained the allegations against them and give some reasonable time of about a week or ten days to give their reply to the allegations and then a final decision may be taken.
Those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractices and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% of back wages with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that they have indulged in some malpractices.
We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than once centre. Such violation will also be treated as malpractice.
We further make it clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. However, we also make it clear that those candidates who have not completed the course but were in the process of completing the course until the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 7 impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course/training provided they are not suspected of any malpractice.
The appeals and special leave petitions stand disposed of.
Pending applications are also disposed of."
2.12 Since, the respondent department did not issue appointment orders to several persons who were selected but could not join the service due to cancellation of examination in light of Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment, various contempt petition and Misc. Applications, being MAs No.479-480/2018 in SLP (C) No.8642-8644/2017 with CP (C) No.711/2018, came to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Misc. Applications were disposed and the said CP was dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment dated 28.03.2018 which reads as under:
"Application for impleadment is allowed. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned ASG.
It has been pointed out that there is no consistent practice in issuing appointment letters. Be that as it may, we clarify our order dated 13th July, 2017 to mean that those persons in the five regions who have been selected and are not „tainted‟ but willing to undergo the course be permitted to join the course, even if appointment letters had not already been issued. The other terms of the order dated 13th July, 2017 remain unchanged.
We make it clear that this clarification is given only for the benefit of those persons who are not tainted. In other words, those candidates who are tainted or are suspected of having committed any malpractice will not get the benefit of this order.
This exercise be completed within three months.
This miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
COMMT.PET. (c) No.711/2018 in C.A. No. 10514/2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition. The contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn."(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 8
2.13 Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.10513/2016 dated 13.7.2017 and in MA No.479- 480/2018 in SLP (C) No.8642-8644/2017 with contempt petition (C) No.711/2018 dated 28.3.2018, the respondents had issued appointment letter/order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure A/7) vide which the applicant was appointed provisionally to the post of Postal Assistant subject to certain conditions including verification of prescribed educational qualifications, community certificates and other certificates and being declared to have satisfactorily completed the prescribed course of training in the Postal Training Centre Varodara etc. 2.14 It is stated that before allowing the applicant to join his service as Postal Assistant, the respondents had taken 100 signatures on blank paper from the each candidates including the applicant herein.
The respondents have not informed or conveyed any reason for such exercise of taking of 100 signatures on blank paper.
2.15 Thereafter, the respondent had forwarded certain documents (including the documents contain the signatures taken in the year 2014 at the time of examination held) along with the blank papers on which signatures of the applicant were obtained in the year 2018 to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (herein after referred to as 'CFSL'), Pune, for verification 2.16 The CFSL had forwarded a report dated 30.09.2019 to the respondent no. 4 herein wherein CFSL opined that with regard to certain documents, the person who wrote the signatures similarly stamped and (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 9 marked with questioned documents. However, the person who wrote the blue enclosed signature stamped and marked S6 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q4.
2.17 Upon receipt of the CFSL report, the disciplinary authority placed the applicant under suspension as disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated vide order dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure A/11). However, subsequently, vide order dated 02.01.2023, the suspension of the applicant was revoked immediately by the disciplinary authority.
2.18 After receipt of CFSL reported dated 30.09.2019 , on the basis of the same, the respondents had issued a charge Memorandum dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A/1 refer) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the applicant while he was discharging the duties of Postal Assistant. It was alleged that the applicant had indulged in improper ways and means to secure appointment in government department. The articles of charges framed against the applicant reads as under:-
"ARTICLE-I That, the said Shri Sandeep while applying for the post of Postal Assistant and during its recruitment process for the period from 21.02.2014 onwards is alleged to have committed following misconduct & misbehaviour.
Shri Sandeep had applied for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant for the year 2013 & 2014 through online application process. Further, the result of examination for the direct recruitment of PA/SA (PAPO, PA SBCO, PA MMS, PA CO/RO and SA RMS) for the year 2013-2014 stand cancelled to have immediate effect as per direction received from Circle office Ahmedabad memo no.
STA/64/DTE/COMPLIANCE/15 dated 21.12.2015 which was intimated to the said Shri. Sandeep vide (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 10 SSPOs office memo no:B2/55/DR PA/2015 dated 23/12/2015.
Consequent upon the receipt of verdict of Civil Appeal No. 10513 of 2016 vide his order dated 13.07.2017 & in MA No. 479-480/2018 in SLP (C) No. 8642/8644/2017 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 711/2018 on dated 28.03.2018, Shri Sandeep was selected as postal Assistant and allotted Surat Division. He was provisionally appointed for the post of Postal Assistant in Nanpura HO under Surat Division (Department of Posts) subject to condition that the department is at liberty to take action against him in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that he had indulged in malpractice in the exam conducted for PA/SA Recruitment 2013-14. Then after, the signatures of Shri. Sandeep, made by him during the recruitment process, were submitted to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) Pune to ascertain the veracity of signature and thereby to find out the genuineness of the candidates. In turn, Shri V. D. Yadav, Scientist 'B', Documents Division, CFSL, Pune furnished his opinion that "The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S6 to S10 and S10/1 to S10/32 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q5 and Q6".
On the basis of Opinion/result of CFSL report, the signatures on the Specimen Signature Sheets are differ than those on, Typing Test Evaluation Sheet and Data Entry Evaluation Sheet and it revealed that there is material irregularities found on the face of basic records of recruitment in Department of Posts, India. As such, it is alleged that the said Shri. Sandeep had indulged in malpractice and mischief to secure appointment in Ceritral Government Services in Department of Posts, India through the examination conducted for the Recruitment to PA/SA cadre for the year 2013-14.
Therefore, it is alleged that the said Shri Sandeep has indulged himself in improper ways and means to secure appointment in Central Government Services in Department of Posts, India and as such managed the entire process to qualify for the post of postal assistant and thereby acted otherwise than in accordance with DOPT OM No.. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) dated 19.05.1993 and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant as required under RAL AD 3 (1) (1), & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
2.19 On receipt of the said charge memorandum dated 13.02.2023, the applicant submitted his representation/ reply dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 11 A/4) and had denied the alleged charges levelled against him.
Further, the applicant had also stated that he himself attended the aptitude test. The entry to the test was allowed after strict checking and ascertaining the identity of the candidate. ID proofs were checked and their Admit Card was obtained from them. The signatures and photographs were tallied and thereafter only they were allowed inside the examination hall. Therefore, there was no possibility of any irregularity alleged in the charge memorandum.
Further, it was stated therein that the signature on OMR Sheet was made way back in 2014 while the sample writings were obtained in the year 2018. Thus there is a gap of four years. During this period writings may change and thus no action can be taken on slight variation in the writings. There are a number of court judgments that no punishment can be awarded on the basis of handwriting expert's opinion alone.
Accordingly, applicant had requested the disciplinary authority to drop the charges as alleged in memorandum dated 13.02.2023.
2.20 However, without considering the above representation, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed the IO and PO vide orders dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure A/2 and A/3 refer) to conduct the departmental enquiry against the applicant.
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 122.21 In the meanwhile, in similar cases, wherein the departmental inquiry/ies has/have been initiated against the similarly placed officers, only on the basis of opinion of the hand writing expert of the CFSL and even without supplying the demanded additional documents to the concerned COs, such as CCTV footage, report of the Invigilator of examination etc., the various Benches of this Tribunal, including the Chandigarh Bench as well as this Bench, have passed interim orders of status quo in similar cases and restrained the respondents to proceed further in the inquiry proceedings.
Further, in similar type of cases, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as well as this Tribunal has held that only on the basis of the opinion of hand writing expert of the CFSL about variation in the signatures of the candidate(s), no one can be prevented from joining service or any action can be taken against an employee. Hence, the present OA.
3. Mr. M B Navani, learned counsel for the applicant mainly argued that :
3.1 The above quoted charges leveled against the applicant vide impugned charge memorandum dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A/1 refer) was denied by the applicant vide his representation dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure A/4 refer) and had brought to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority that after thorough checking of the identity of the candidates, including the applicant, he was allowed to appear in the said examination.(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 13
Further it is submitted that on the date of the said examination/test, Videography was also done as there were CCTV cameras installed to check and record the entire process of the said examination. Therefore, from the above videography and CCTV camera recordings, it can be ascertained that the applicant himself had participated in the said examination. Further, the documents supplied with the aforesaid charge Memo are not conclusive to arrive at the conclusion that the irregularities had been committed by the applicant in the same examination.
Since, the respondents have not supplied the copies of the aforesaid documents including footage of the CCTV cameras recording(s) etc. which he had demanded vide his application, the applicant has been denied an opportunity to defend his case effectively.
3.2 However, without exceeding to the above request of the applicant, the respondents appointed the IO and PO vide letters dated 10.05.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that to ascertain the presence of the applicant i.e., report of the invigilator who was present in the examination room, CCTV footage and other documents which were demanded by the applicant and the relevancy of the said demanded additional documents was as such admitted by the IO, the disciplinary proceeding/inquiry instituted against the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 14 applicant is in clear violation of various orders passed by this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
It is submitted that the manner in which the respondents proceeded with the inquiry by appointing IO goes to show that the respondents are pre-determined to punish the applicant at any cost.
3.3 In a similar case, after considering various similar cases, the Hon'ble Principal Bench in OA No. 3685 of 2014 has held as under:
"In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal, the appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer without consideration of the written statement of defence is absolutely in contravention to sub rule 5(a) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and thus violative of principles of natural justice. In our judgment in Dr. Sahadeva Singh (supra), we have also notice the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited & another v Ananta Saha & others (2011) 5 SCC 142, wherein the Apex Court has held that if the initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent proceedings are vitiated."
Having made the above observations, in para 17 of the said Order/Judgment, the Tribunal further held that:
"In the present case, the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer being in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, subsequent disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated."(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 15
3.4 Further, learned counsel for the applicant emphatically argued that before entering into the examination hall, candidates were required to show the hall ticket which contained the photograph of the candidate(s) issued by the concerned authority in addition the candidates were also required to show the photo ID.
Further, both the Tests were conducted under the surveillance of CCTV cameras as well as the entire examination proceeding was videographed. Therefore, there is no question of the applicant having committed any impersonation in the examination hall.
It is submitted that throughout the conducting of the examination, there was an examiner/invigilator in the examination hall/room(s). Still, according to the respondents, someone had played impersonation in the examination hall, shows the failure of the department itself and necessary action should be taken against those officers. Instead of doing so, the department wants to make the selected persons as escape goats. Therefore, the charges levelled against the applicant are vague in the nature and without any substantial corroborative evidence(s).
3.5 It is submitted that the action on the part of the respondents terminating the services of the appointees only on the reliance of CFSL report had already been deprecated and set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide common judgment dated 16.4.2018 in WRIT A (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 16 No.2813 of 2017, titled Ran Vijay Singh and others, and connected cases (Annexure A/15 refer). In these group of Writ Petitions, the petitioners had challenged their termination from the post of Constable (GD) in Assam Rifles, BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB, selection of the said posts was conducted by Staff Selection Commission (Central Region), Allahabad on the ground that only on the basis of opinion of hand writing expert of CFSL, their services cannot be terminated without following the principles of natural justice, as the termination of their services was not simplicitor termination but stigmatic. In the said Writ Petitions, Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their officers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 17 upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic."
Further this Bench of the Tribunal in a similar matter, vide Order/Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in OA No. 223/2019, titled Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav vs. Union of India and others, , wherein the action taken by the department only on the basis of CFSL report was considered and held :
"12. At this stage...........................................
The impugned decision is also not tenable in light of dictum laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magan Biharlilal vs. State of Punjab & Haryana reported in AIR 1977 SC 1091 wherein it was held that conviction cannot be based on the opinion of the hand writing expert as it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without any substantial corroboration. In the present case, the respondent relied upon the CFSL hand writing expert opinion and based on it denied the reinstatement of the applicant and that too without any other corroboration whatsoever. In absence of any material contrary to what is noted hereinabove, the decision making process and the conclusion arrived at by the respondent, in our considered view is vitiated and suffers from legal infirmity and therefore the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside."
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned charge memorandum suffered from legal infirmity and the same is required to be set aside.
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 183.6 Further learned counsel for the applicant by referring the Order/Judgment dated 8.4.2022 in OA No. 435 of 2021 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal would submit that in the said OA on the basis of similar CFSL report, service of applicant therein was terminated, the said impugned order of termination was set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the candidature of the applicant therein for reinstatement.
3.7 Further, this Bench vide common Order/Judgment dated 4.5.2023 in OA No.127/2022, titled Ashishkuar M Patel vs. Union of India and others, and other connected cases considered the issue of challenge of similar kind of Charge Memoranda and allowed the same by quashing such Charge Memoranda. The aforesaid common Order/Judgment of this Tribunal dated 4.5.2023 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by preferring various Special Civil Applications, being SCA No.18023/2023 and other connected SCAs and the Hon'ble High Court vide common judgment dated 5.8.2024 upheld the aforesaid common judgment of this Tribunal.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case of the applicant except the so called opinion of handwriting expert of the CFSL, no other (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 19 corroborative material in support of the said CFSL report has been supplied to the applicant nor any CCTV footage has been supplied. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the applicant solely based on CFSL report which is as such not found sufficient material to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the similarly placed employee(s) by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court, the impugned charge memorandum is not tenable and is required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, while denying the claim of the applicant, learned counsel Ms. R. R. Patel, for the respondents mainly submitted as under:
4.1 The factual aspect of the case has not been disputed by the respondents.
4.2 However, it is submitted that the applicant's service was ordered to be terminated vide order dated 23.12.2015 under the provision of sub-
rule-1 of Rule-5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. Thereafter, as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 13.07.2017 in the said SLP filed by applicant and other similarly placed candidates, the applicant was provisionally appointed to the post of Postal Assistant in Nanpura HO, Surat Division. Upon joining of the applicant, his 100 specimen signatures were obtained for verifying the signatures available on the documents produced by the applicant during (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 20 the recruitment process and sent to CFSL, Pune vide letter dated 23.06.2018.
4.3 It is contended that the CFSL, Pune had submitted its report/opinion dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure A/8 refer) in respect of the applicant. On the basis of result of CFSL report, the signatures on the Specimen Signature Sheet and the OMR Answer sheet were different and it was revealed that there was material irregularities found on the face of basic records of recruitment in Department of Posts, India. As such, it was alleged that the applicant had indulged in malpractice and made mischief to secure appointment to Central Government Services by virtue of the examination conducted for the Recruitment to the post of PA/SA cadre for the year 2013-14.
The respondents have further contended that as per the report of CFSL, the specimen signatures taken on 100 pages and subsequently the same was sent for examination to the CFSL to be compared with ORM sheet and the same has been found mismatched. It is stated that the mismatching of signature is also the violation of terms of examination. It is stated that the applicant was found guilty in the signature verification made by CFSL Pune. The CFSL Pune has opined only on basis of documents forwarded by the respondents which were submitted to the respondents by the applicant. The mismatching of signature is also the violation (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 21 of terms of examination. Therefore, it is alleged that, the applicant - Surat Division had indulged in malpractice and made mischief to secure appointment to Central Government by virtue of the examination conducted for the Recruitment to the posts of PA/SA cadre for the year 2013-14 and the charge sheet under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been issued to the applicant vide SPOs memo Surat Division dated 13.02.2023. Under the circumstances, the charge memorandum is just and proper.
4.4 It is also submitted that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order passed in Civil Appeal No. 10513 of 2016 dated 13.07.2017:
"... Those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractice and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that they have indulged in Some malpractices. We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than one center. Such violations will also be treated as malpractice..".
Therefore, the action against the applicant is fair, legal, justified & sustainable. 4.5 Learned counsel for the respondents would argue that the applicant is therefore not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
5. Heard Shri M B Navani, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. R. R. Patel, learned counsel for (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 22 respondents at length and we have perused the material placed on record.
6. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the charge Memorandum dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A/1) as well the continuation of the departmental proceedings mainly on the ground that without there being any evidence in support of the allegation and merely only on the basis of handwriting expert opinion of the CFSL about variation on the signatures, the said proceeding is vitiated and not tenable in light of judgments and orders passed by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as this Tribunal in identical cases. 6.1 It emerges from the record that the signatures of the applicant obtained in the year 2018 on hundred blank papers were sent together, with the signatures which were taken at the time when the applicant appeared in the examination held in the year 2014 by the respondents for forensic document examination and handwriting expert opinion of CFSL had been sought.
After examination of these forwarded documents, the CFSL had submitted its report dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure A/8) whereby the CFSL opined that:
The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined.
2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S6 to S10 also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q4.
3. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S16 to S20 also wrote the red enclosed signatures (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 23 similarly stamped and marked Q10, Q11 and Q12.
4. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S36 to S40 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q22, Q23 and Q24.
5. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S56 to S60 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q34, Q35 and Q36.
6. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S61 to S65 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q37, Q38 and Q39.
7. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S66 to S70 also wrote the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q41 and Q42.
8. Being reproduction copies, No opinion is possible on the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked X1 to X8 and X10 to X14. Signature marked X9 is not legible.
9. I.. No opinion is possible on rest of the disputed signatures on comparison with the respective standard signatures as all the handwriting characteristics as occurring in questioned signatures are not similarly and collectively accounted for from the respective standard signatures.
II. A few more extended writings and signatures of candidates written repeatedly on 5-6 sheets are needed for further examination. The Specimen writings of candidate(s) be obtained by dictating the entire content of questioned documents on a blank format of OMR Answer sheets. Some admittedly genuine writing and signatures are also needed.
It emerges from the records that undisputedly, only on the basis of above opinion rendered by the hand writing expert of CFSL, the Disciplinary Authority had alleged that the applicant did not attend the aptitude test prescribed for recruitment (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 24 and managed his absence and indulged in malpractice in the examination and thereby the applicant has committed a grave misconduct.
6.2 At this stage, it is important to mention that the respondents herein had categorically admitted that except the said report of the CFSL, no other supporting or corroborative evidence/documents are available with the DA to support the allegations levelled against the applicant.
Therefore, it is the core submission of learned counsel for the applicant that without there being any substantial corroborative evidence to sustain the charge, the said impugned Memorandum issued by the disciplinary authority and continuation of departmental inquiry against the applicant is vitiated and suffered from legal infirmities as the same is violative of principles of natural justice and as such the same is required to be set aside.
In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court and this Tribunal on identical issue.
6.3 We find substantial force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.
In this regard, it is apt to mention that this Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad Bench by considering the observations and directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016 in the case of Monu Tomar V/s. UOI & Ors., judgment passed in Magan (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 25 Bihari Lal vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 1091); judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India as well as judgments passed by the various Benches of this Tribunal, including Ahmedabad Bench, held that the respondents had committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicant solely on the basis of opinion of the handwriting expert as also denying the contention of the respondents that applicant would get opportunity to rebut the allegations in inquiry. The relevant observations and findings of this Tribunal in common Order dated 4.5.2023 in OA No.127/2022 and connected OAs, Ashishkuar M Patel vs. Union of India and others, reads as under:-
"11. ... .... It is well settled legal proposition that this type of evidence can be used to corroborate the main evidence adduced against the person. In the present matter, it is admitted that applicants had been issued charge sheet solely, on the basis of opinion of hand writing expert, which cannot be sustained in law. To substantiate our view, it will be appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicants.
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."(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 26
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 is usually required to speak, not to facts but to opinions."
In the matter of Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab [AIR 1977 SC 1091] Hon‟ble Apex Court held that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more 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. This rule has been universally acted 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 (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 27 investigating agency like police. No reason has been assigned for not registering the criminal case for alleged impersonation. As stated earlier, there was no 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 that at the 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 (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 28 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."
6.4 It is also important to mention that being aggrieved by the aforesaid common order of this Tribunal dated 4.5.2023, the official respondents had challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of Special Civil Applications, being SCA No.18023/2023 and other connected SCAs. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide common judgment dated 5.8.2024 while upholding the Order of this Tribunal, held as under:
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 29"11.12 To consider the argument of the respondents on the issue of predetermined, it would be appropriate to reproduce the gist of Article of charge of one of the respondent and which is identical in all these matters are as under:
"Shri Adam Talab Jadeja had applied for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant for the year 2013-2014 through online application process. Shri Adam Talab Jadeja was appointed in Govt. services and posted as PA Naliya S.O. w.e.f. 24-07-2018 in compliance of the verdict of Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016 dated 13.07.2017 delivered by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi with clear direction in it that the Department is at liberty to take action against him who have violated the terms of examination and such violation will be treated as malpractice. During course of pre-appointment formalities, the sample signatures of Shri Adam Talab Jadeja have been taken and were forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) Pune to ascertain the veracity of signature and thereby to find out the genuineness of the candidate i.e. Shri Adam Talab Jadeja. In turn, V. D. Yadav, Scientist "B" (Document), O/o CFSL, Pune furnished his/her opinion that:
"The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S57 to S62 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q7, Q8 and Q9.
On the basis of result of CFSL report, it is revealed that there is material irregularities found on the face of basic records of recruitment in Government Department. As such, it is alleged that the said Shri Adam Talab Jadeja had indulged malpractice and mischief to secure appointment in Government Services."
11.13 It is this sole charge for which the respondents are to be proceeded departmentally. In the opinion of the Court, charge itself is such that it is a „fate accomplish‟ for the respondents. However, there is no charge in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, how variation in the specimen signature obtained after several years can be treated (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 30 as evidence as misconduct during exam particularly where there is no imputation of impersonation. The Tribunal in the impugned order therefore, cannot be faulted in this regard.
11.14 Moreover, pursuant to the inquiry by letter dated 23-08-2021 (Annexure-R/13), Page-374, Special Civil Application No.18125/2023), the respondents demanded the documents relevant to the case like the CCTV footage of the exam centre, the attendance sheet with invigilator counter sign and other 18 documents. The Inquiry Officer by its Communication dated 26-08- 2021 (Page-378) allowed application of the respondents and required production under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. However, Assistant Director, Postal Services (Recruitment) Gujarat Circle under Communication dated 23-12-2020 (sic) declared that the document for the defence and this witnesses are not available.
11.15 Therefore, the Tribunal was justified when it observed in impugned order as under:
"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."
11.16 Though a serious contention is raised by the Department that the interference of the Central Administrative Tribunal at the threshold of a Departmental inquiry is a jurisdictional error and that the case of the defence cannot be considered even before the Departmental Inquiry is begun. The Court will have to consider all the attending circumstances including the genesis of the Department action i.e. the Directions of the Apex Court.
11.17 The action contemplated will also have to be on fair procedure and opportunity to the respondent to defend his case. On one hand, the Department argued that the Department will rely only on the documents (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 31 supplied to the respondents, on the other hand, does not supply other relevant material and documents demanded by the Respondents, though such material is important for the defence and is bound to be with the Department. This half hearted inquiry is bound to result in a futile exercise or at-least lack of opportunity for the respondents to defend their respective case resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the respondents before the tribunal, the Union were not right in contending that the applicants would get opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them in inquiry. the tribunal therefore opined that, 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.
11.18 One more aspect brought to the notice during course of argument, which the Central Administrative Tribunal had no occasion to examine is the conduct of department. It is a case of the co-employees against whom the same charge-sheet was issued and qua them the inquiry proceeded only on the charge of „variation in specimen signature‟ and the Inquiry Officer after due departmental inquiry, has held in its inquiry report that the charges against „Shri Vikas Raj S.A.‟ are not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority has given a Disagreement Note on I.O. report and punishment order dated 21-12-2021 is passed and Appeal (Departmental) is also dismissed, wherein in subject matter of challenge in O.A. No.377/2022 pending before the the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench which is evidence of a predetermined approach of the department.
11.19 In 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 in conformity of the directions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court particularly in its Order dated (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 32 13.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016 and allied matters.
11.20 Before parting, the Court may observe that by not 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 for malpractice 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.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference. Hence, all the petitions are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged."
(emphasis supplied) It can be seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat observed that the impugned decision/ order of the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceeding/ inquiry solely based on the opinion of the handwriting expert of CFSL that too without any corroborative evidence had been declared as illegal and void ab initio.
6.5 At this stage, it is profitable to mention that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide common Judgment dated 5.8.2024 in SCA No.18023 of 2023 and connected SCAs, Union of India vs. Anil Kumar and others upholding the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.127/2022, as well as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.P.S. Rathora vs. CBI ((2017) 5 SCC
817) and Padhum Kumar vs. State of UP ((2020) 3 SCC 35) have been considered and referred by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in identical case, i.e., WP (C) No.17328/2024 and other connected petitions Union of India and others vs. Jagmohan and vide (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 33 common judgment dated 17.12.2024 held as under:-
"14. The factual and legal position which obtained in the case of the respondents before the High Court of Gujarat in Anil Kumar are identical to those which obtained in the case of the present respondents, inasmuch as the respondents in Anil Kumar were also among those who participated in the examination conducted for the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 21 February 2014 and who, after initially having been appointed, were terminated by cancellation of their appointment, based on the report of the CFSL. In their case, too, fresh appointment orders were issued, an inquiry conducted, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in its order dated 13 July 2017 in Civil Appeal 10513/2016 and connected cases. In their case, too, documents, which were sought by the respondents for their defence were permitted by the IO but not provided. Among other reasons, the High Court of Gujarat, in its judgement in Anil Kumar, has affirmed the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal to set aside the termination of the respondents (before the High Court) from service and directed reinstatement, on the ground that there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice in not providing the documents sought by the respondents, especially as the only evidence against them was the CFSL report.
15. The respondents would, therefore, in any case be entitled to relief, to maintain parity with their compatriot-respondents before the High Court of Gujarat in Anil Kumar.
16. The default, on the petitioner‟s part, in supplying the documents sought by the respondents Jagmohan and Sukhvinder, and allowed by the IO has relevant for the defence is, in our opinion, fatal to the inquiry proceedings. It signals complete breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is elementary that, in any quasi-judicial proceedings, the person charged is entitled to be provided material relevant for his defence. The finding of the IO that the documents were relevant ipso facto render their non-supply to the respondents fatal to the inquiry. In fact, no reasonable purpose would be served even in permitting the petitioners to recommence the inquiry against the respondents, if the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 34 documents are essential for the defence are not forthcoming. In this context, we find it difficult to believe that the documents are not available, as the inquiry was conducted in reasonable proximity to the order passed by the Supreme Court.
17. It is, further, well settled in evidence that handwriting comparison constitutes evidence of an extremely weak character, and cannot, in any event, be treated as conclusive. We may reproduce, in this context, the following passages from the judgements of the Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v CBI (2017) 5 SCC 817 and Padum Kumar v State of UP (2020) 3 SCC 35:
From S.P.S. Rathore:
47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
accused that the signatures of Ms Ruchika on the memorandum were forged though she signed the same in front of Shri Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms Aradhana and Mrs Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 35 must be examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
49. In Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma (1973) 4 SCC 46 this Court held as under:
"26. .... It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence of handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting between (PW 1/A) and other admitted writings of the deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in view of the main essential features of the case, not much value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. In Kishore Chandra Singh Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat (1954) 1 SCC 326 this Court observed that conclusions based upon mere comparison of handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to the positive evidence in the case.
50. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a handwriting expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
(Emphasis supplied) From Padum Kumar "14. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 36 independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting experts cannot be relied upon to base the conviction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon S. Gopal Reddy v State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:
"28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot be said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering "conclusive" proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal v State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined:
„7. ... we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a 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. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 381, that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v Mohd. Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 37 it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that an expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.‟"
15. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the evidence of the handwriting expert. As held by the Supreme Court in Magan Bihari Lal v State of Punjab that:
"7. ..... expert opinion must always be received with great caution .... it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law."
16. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the handwriting expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v State of M.P. (1980 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:
"4. .... True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 38 it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty "is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence" [Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v Edinburgh Magistrate 1953 SC 34, quoted by Professor Cross in his evidence].
*****
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 39 opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact. ... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard-and-fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.
18. Keeping in view the above legal position, we find no error in the impugned judgement of the Tribunal, as the petitioners have, in their arsenal, the handwriting opinion of the CFSL and no other evidence, and the respondents were, moreover, not provided with the documents which were found, even by the IO, to be necessary for their defence.
19. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is upheld in its entirety."
(emphasis supplied)
7. As noted hereinabove, the respondents admitted that there is no other evidence except the opinion of handwriting expert of the CFSL report for initiating the departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in support of the allegations/charge levelled against the applicant in the impugned charge Memorandum.
7.1 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Union of India and others vs. Anil Kumar (supra) upholding the (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 40 decision of this Tribunal (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India and others vs. Jagmohan (supra) upholding the decision of Principle Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi relying upon the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Union of India and others vs. Anil Kumar (supra).
8. It is reiterated that at the time of taking examination one has to prove his/her identity before entering the examination hall/centre. It is not in dispute that the candidates were required to upload their photo and signature at the time of submitting their application(s) online. Therefore, the applicant could have been denied entry in the examination hall in case of any doubt about his identity as noted hereinabove. Further, it is not in dispute that CCTV cameras were operating in the examination centre. Neither the footage of the CCTV cameras was supplied by the disciplinary authority along with the charge Memorandum nor has any corroborative supporting evidence to the handwriting export of the CFSL been placed on record by the respondents. Even otherwise, the respondents have not denied the relevancy of such important supporting material.
9. Further, it emerges from the record that there is no specific complaint against the applicant about alleged impersonation and it is evident that no complaint or criminal case has been registered in this regard against the applicant. The specimen signatures were taken not on account of any complaint against the applicant.
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 4110. As noted hereinabove, the respondents admitted that there is no other evidence except the opinion of handwriting expert of the CFSL report for initiating the departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in support of the allegations/charge levelled against the applicant in the impugned charge Memorandum.
11. Further, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant will get an opportunity to submit his defence in the departmental inquiry, the said submissions is not tenable in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) and subsequent judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.1835/2024 and connected matters, vide common oral order dated 19.9.2024 in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Priyanshu Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh even otherwise as noted herein above, now it is a settled proposition of law that charge Memorandum issued against the candidate/employee solely based on opinion of handwriting expert of the CFSL, that too without any corroborative evidence, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. Therefore, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jagmohan (supra) as well as the Order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.127/2022 dated 4.5.2023 and the discussion made herein above, we are of the considered view (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO. 180/2023) 42 that the respondents have committed the grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicant solely on the basis of opinion of the hand writing expert of the CFSL. Thus, the impugned order/charge memorandum dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A/1) deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. In the result, the present OA is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned charge Memorandum dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside and subsequent proceedings, if any, pursuant to the said charge-sheet are also quashed and set aside since the charge Memorandum itself has been set aside.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ravi/PA