Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ankit vs Staff Selection Commission on 1 July, 2025
1
Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2848/2019
This the 01st day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Ankit, Age-25 years,
Group - C, Appointment,
S/o Sh. Dharambir,
Roll No. 2201564527
VPO-Sanpera, Tehsil-Ganaur,
Sonepat, Haryana
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through the Chairman,
S.S.C,
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3
2. The Regional Director(NR),
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
4. The Director,
Lady Hardinge Medical College &
Associated SSK (Smt. Suchitra Kriplani) & KSC (Kalawati
Saran Children) Hospitals
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
New Delhi
...Respondents
(None for the respondents)
2
Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the order dated 11.02.2025 wherein the following was recorded by this Tribunal :
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that issue in the present OA concerns the mis-match of the handwriting and signatures and this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in a plethora of judgments and one of the OAs which pertains to the same batch/recruitment exercise is OA No. 3321/2018 dated 11.01.2024 and thereafter it has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WPC No. 13403/2024 dated 09.10.2024.
A copy of the aforementioned judgments have to be supplied to the other side. The respondents are granted two weeks' time to go through the judgments and be ready with the arguments on the next dated.
List under the 'Part Heard' category on 25.03.2025.
2. The matter was listed under the part heard category. However, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents thereafter on 25.03.2025 and 23.04.2025. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the matter is taken up today under Rule 16 of the C.A.T. Procedure Rules 3 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019
3. The applicant participated in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination [CHSL], 2012 conducted by the Selection Commission (SSC) for the recruitment of the DEO and LDC.
4. The applicant, being eligible for the said post, applied under the UR category. Having successfully cleared all the stages of the examination, he obtained 135 marks in the written examination. His signatures and thumb impression were taken while appearing in the written test/Tier-I examination and only after verification by the invigilator, the applicant was allowed to participate in the Tier-I examination. Thereafter, the applicant participated in the Skill Test and was declared qualified. However, vide order dated 24.02.2015, the candidature of the applicant in the selection process of CHSL-2012 was cancelled and further, he was debarred from appearing in any exam conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for a period of three years. The relevant extract of the said order dated 24.02.2015 is reproduced herein below:
"3. Whereas, the Commission, the Competent Authority in the matter, has made a conscious decision with a view to protecting the integrity of the selection process and to prevent candidates who are prima facie found to indulge in unfair means in such examination from entering into Government service through such manipulative practices.
4. Whereas the Commission with regular verification of signatures, handwriting speciments etc. from forensic experts 4 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 who have proven expertise in such verification and had undertaken such verification of signatures, handwriting and thumb impressions in the case of written examination papers and Skill Test (ST)/Data Entry Skill Test (DEST) of the aforesaid examination.
5. Whereas report of the forensic expert has been received and reliable evidence has emerged during such verification that Shri Ankit had resorted to malpractice/unfair means in the said papers.
6. Now, therefore, Shri Ankit son of Shri Dharambir is hereby informed that his candidature in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination 2012 is cancelled and he is debarred for a period of three years from the Commission's examinations without prejudice to the rights of the Commission to initiate/seek criminal proceedings against you."
5. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred this OA, ventilating his grievance, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 24.2.2015 whereby the candidature of applicant in selection process CHSL-2012 has been cancelled and order dated £.9.2019 whereby the representation of applicant made against the order dated 24. 2.
2015 has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that candidature of applicant to the post of LDC be restored and further applicant be given appointment to the post of LDC in Kalawati Hospital in pursuance of selection process of CHSL- 2012 initiated by SSC with all consequential benefit including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances. Or/and Any ·other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
6. It is the case of the applicant that before the candidature of the applicant was cancelled, he was never put to any notice and therefore, there was violation of principles of natural justice. Elaborating he draws attention to Para 6 of the impugned order, wherein it finds mention that the applicant has been debarred for a period of three years from the Commission's examinations, he argues that 5 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 since the impugned order has civil consequences, principles of natural justice had to be followed mandatorily. He states that as his name appeared in the list of selected candidates, the right to legitimate expectation has accrued in his favour but the respondents have cancelled the candidature of the applicant on account of verification of the candidate's signatures, handwriting and thumb impression. He states that it is a settled law of the various High Courts as well as the Apex Court, that the CFSL report is not conclusive and cannot be the sole reason to cancel the candidature of the applicant. As the CFSL has verified only the signatures and handwriting and not thumb impression, the report of the CFSL should be ignored, as it was not a conclusive evidence, to arrive at a conclusion that it is the case of impersonation. He states that while relying upon the CFSL report in the absence of the examination of the thumb impression, the candidature of the applicant could not be cancelled. He states that during the pendency of the OA, the law is evolved in favour of the applicant and time and again, the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Courts have reiterated that in the absence of thumb impression, the CFSL report would not be conclusive and the same could not be followed. 6 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the Tribunal's judgement dated 18.10.2022 passed in OA No. 614/2015. The operative Para reads as under:-
"5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also carefully examined the documents on record, as also the reports of the forensic experts submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the considered view that we are not going into the merits of either the allegations against the applicant or applicant's own claim of innocence. The limited issue before us is whether the impugned order can be sustained, especially, when no opportunity was afforded to the applicant to contest the inference drawn by the respondents which led to the imposition of a very harsh penalty upon the applicant. Our answer this question is an unequivocal NO. We have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2014 on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was afforded to the applicant nor was the report which was the basis of such an order ever shared with the applicant. While quashing the said order we remand the matter back to the competent authority amongst the respondents to review the said order in the light of facts and circumstances of the case after affording due and adequate opportunity to the applicant to present his case. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to carry out such review within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Dipak Patar vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 08.05.2015 in OA No. 040/00220/2014. The operative paras read as under:-
"13. The very point raised by the applicant is that before cancellation or declaration of his disqualification the applicant was not given any opportunity of being heard or any notice whatsoever was issued to him. In similar nature one Shri Ajay Kumar approached the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1487 of 2004 wherein it was held as under:
xxx xxx xxx 7 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019
12. We have considered the averments made by applicant and have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Admittedly candidature of the applicant has been cancelled by the respondents without asking any explanation from the applicant in this regard. The respondent themselves came to the conclu- Sion that the applicant was involved in fraudulent means in the Exami- nation. Though the respondents have sought expert opinion from the Government Agency but all these happened on the back of the respondents. Therefore allegation of arbitrariness has been levelled against the respondents. The respondents may have called the applicant before cancellation of his candidature and heard him and explain the material to be used against him. Since before passing impugned order no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, which is in violation of principles of audi alteram partam. In the case in hand not only his candidature for the examination has been cancelled, he has been debarred in future in appearing in any examination to be conducted by the respondents Board. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judginents has held as under:,
13. In view of the above, impugned order dated 1.10.2004 is set aside. Thus, the O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs."
14. In Ram Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 381, the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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. Further in Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728, the Apex Court held that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is after all opinion evidence. This view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodlı Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, wherein it was pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court that expert 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. In Magan Diharilal v. Stare of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with care, caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot be itself form the basis for a convictiojí. Further in the case of Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting 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 8 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 upon such evidence, the Court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial, In Chatt Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1890, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that expert opinion of the handwriting even if admissible, was not a safe basis for finding a forgery.
15. After taking into conspectus the ratio laid down in the afore quoted decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that admittedly the declaration of the disqualification of the applicant without giving him an opportunity of hearing is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authority to provide the applicant adequate opportunity of being heard by way of making a representation to establish his case against the decision of the respondent authority for disqualification on the ground of "impersonation". The above order shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision so arrived at by the authority shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith so as to enable him to agitate before the appropriate forum if he is not satisfied with the decision of the authority.
16. With the above observation the Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ii) The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the matter of Naveen Kumar vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others in CWP-7598-2017 (O/M), COCP- 529-2019 (O/M) dated 14.03.2019, wherein the operative portion reads as under:-
"It goes to show that the thumb impressions of the applicant-petitioner matched with the application form, OMR sheet and other documents, meaning thereby that applicant- petitioner is same person, who filled up the application form with his own hand writing, and appeared in said examination and appeared at the time of scrutiny of documents also. Admittedly, the science of hand writing is weak science, whereas science of finger print is perfect science. Therefore, in case, there is choice between opinion of hand writing expert and opinion of finger print expert, opinion of finger print is safe to be relief upon. Since, in this case, thumb impressions of petitioner on application form, OMR sheet and subsequent documents have matched with his specimen thumb impressions, therefore, it is to 9 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 be held that applicant-petitioner is same person, who appeared in examination.
Consequently, orders of respondents (Annexure P-6 and Annexure -P-7) rejecting the candidature of the applicant- petitioner on the ground of mismatch of hand writing/signatures with various documents, are hereby quashed. Consequently, petition is allowed. Since it is not disputed that applicant- petitioner was a successful candidate, respondents are directed to complete all formalities for his appointment and consequently, issue him appointment letter, as per result declared by them, considering that as a result of comparison of thumb impressions, he is same person, who had applied for Group 'D' post and was successful in same. The same order be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear this own costs."
9. Learned counsel also draws attention to the order passed by this Tribunal in a similar OA i.e. OA No 3321/2018 titled Sunil Kumar Rathee vs. SSC wherein the Tribunal has held as under :
11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are quashed and the candidature is restored, the respondents are directed to call the applicant and obtain his thumb impression and send the same to the CFSL to exclude of impersonation and only after the CFSL report is received, and the question of impersonation with respect to the applicant is clearly established against him. The candidature of the applicant may be processed and taken into logical conclusion. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the CFSL report finds favour to the applicant, the offer of appointment be extended to him along with consequential benefits on notional basis from the date his counterparts have joined against the said selection process from the date of actual appointment.
10. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P (C) No. 10 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 14303/2024 wherein while dismissing the said W.P., the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under :
19. We see no reason at all why this writ petition was preferred before this Court. All that has been done is that the petitioners has been directed to verify the identity of the respondent by sending his thumb impressions to the CFSL and to take a decision based on the report of the CFSL in that regard.
Needless to say, any such decision must be preceded by the providing, to the respondent, of the material against him, and affording him a chance to respond.
20. We clarify that if, however, the petitioners proposes to debar the respondent from attempting any future examinations for any period of time, para 18 supra would be complied with, in letter and spirit.
21. With the above clarifications, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition in limine, as we find no case deserving of interference, by us, with the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal.
11. In the counter reply, the respondents have stated that the handwriting as well as the signatures of the applicant were sent to the CFSL and in terms of the CFSL report. It was the case where the signature as well as handwriting do not match and in this situation, the applicant could not be permitted to proceed with the candidature and the same was duly cancelled by the respondents. It is further stated that as it was a clear case of impersonation and the applicant, who may have reached the stage on merit, but since the candidature of the applicant was under cloud, he could not be extended the offer of appointment in view of 11 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 non-clearance from the CFSL. However, the counter does not dispute that there was no Show Cause Notice issued before the impugned order was passed by the respondents nor were the contents of the CFSL report provided to the applicant along with the impugned orders.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length and perused the documents on record.
13. We have gone through the impugned order once again, wherein para 6 clearly mentions that the applicant has been debarred from the Commission's examinations. We are no doubt that it is the stigmatic order and has civil consequences. The respondents ought to have extended the opportunity to the applicant and communicated the reason for passing the impugned order. This reason is sufficient to quash the impugned order. With respect to the contention of the applicant, the CFSL report based on signatures and handwriting is not conclusive and should be ignored. We may reserve our comments with respect to the same. The candidature of the applicant is under cloud and the cloud has to be cleared.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and the candidature of the applicant is restored. The respondents are directed to call the applicant and 12 Item No. 29/C-4 OA 2848/2019 obtain his thumb impression and send the same to the CFSL to exclude of impersonation and only after the CFSL report is received and the question of impersonation with respect to the applicant is clearly established against him, the candidature of the applicant may be processed and taken to its logical conclusion. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the CFSL report finds favour to the applicant, the offer of appointment be extended to him along with consequential benefits on notional basis from the date his counterparts have joined against the said selection process from the date of actual appointment.
15. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nk/