Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sandeep Kohar vs Post Haryana Circle on 10 April, 2024
1 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 15.01.2024
Pronounced on: 10.04.2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
(1) OA No. 060/439/2022
Sandeep Kohar age about 20 years son of Ram Kumar,
resident of village and P.O. Mayar, Distt. Hisar and ex-
Postal Assistant, Hansi MDG, Hisar Division, Hisar,
125001.(Group C)
......Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary. Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology.
Department of Posts, Headquarter. Dak Bhawan.
Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 Mail:
[email protected]
2. Appellate Authority-cum the Postmaster General,
Haryana Circle, Ambala, Distt. Ambala, Haryana,
133001 Mail: [email protected]
3. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar,
Distt. Hisar, 125001.Mail:
[email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post,
Hisar (East) under the office Superintendent of Post
Offices, Hisar, Distt. Hisar, 125001
Mail:[email protected]
......................Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
2 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
(2) OA No. 060/438/2022
Robin Kumar age about 30 years son of Jaibeer Mor,
resident of village and P.O. Madanheri, Tehsil Hansi,
Distt. Hisar, 125001, 110001; (Group C)
..........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Headquarter, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 Mail:
secretary_posts @indian.gov.in
2. Appellate Authority-cum- the Postmaster General,
Haryana Circle, Ambala, Distt. Ambala, Haryana,
133001 Mail: [email protected]
3. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar,
Distt. Hisar, 125001 Mail:
[email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post,
Hisar (East) under th office Superintendent of Post
Offices, Hisar, Distt. Hisar, 125001
Mail:[email protected]
......Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(3) OA No. 060/440/2022
Pardeep Kumar age 28 years son of Satyawan Singh,
resident of village and PO. Haibatpur. Tehsil Narnaund,
Dist. Hisar and ex- Sorting Assistant HRIO RMS D
Division, Nanakpura, New Delhi 110001; (Group C)
3 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology.
Department of Posts Headquarter, Dak Bhawan
Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110000 Mail: secretary
[email protected]
2 Appellate Authority-cum the Postmaster General
Haryana Circle, Ambala Distt. Ambala Haryana,
133001 Mail: [email protected]
3. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar,
Distt. Hisar, 125001 Mail:
[email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post,
Hisar (East) under the office Superintendent of Post
Offices, Hisar, Distt. Hisar, 125001 Mail:dohissar.hr
@indiapost.gov.in
........Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(4) OA No. 060/448/2021
Ankit Singh age about 27 years son of Maha Singh,
resident of Village and P.O. Ghirai, Tehsil Hansi, Distt.
Hisar (Group-C)
.....Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. Shiv Kumar proxy counsel for Sh.
Jasbir Mor)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Head Quarters, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Mail ID. secretary-
[email protected]
4 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
2 Appellate Authority - Director Postal Services Ambala,
Circle Office, Ambala. Mail ID.
[email protected]
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala
Division, Ambala. Mail id: [email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post
office (Division), Ambala Division, Ambala Mail id:
[email protected]
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(5) OA No. 060/1004/2021
Manoj Kumar age about 32 years son of Rajbir Singh,
resident of village and Post Office Dobhi, Tehsil and
Distt. Hisar.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Headquarter, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
Mail. I.D [email protected]
2. Appellate Authority - Director Postal Services, Haryana
Circle, Ambala, office of the Postmaster General,
Haryana Circle, Ambala, Distt. Ambala, Haryana. Mail.
ID [email protected]
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar Division,
Hisar.
Mail id [email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post
office (Division), Ambala Division, Ambala. Mail ID
[email protected]
....Respondents
5 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(6) OA No. 060/1082/2022
Amit Kumar age about 28 years son of Ranbir Singh,
resident of village and P.O.Bhani Amirpur, Tehsil
Narnaund. Distt. Hisar and ex- Sorting Assistant,HRO,
RMS D. Division,Hisar, 125001; (Group C)
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Headquarter, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 110001 Mail: secretary posts
@indian.gov.in
2. Appellate Authority-cum- the Postmaster General,
Haryana Circle, Ambala, Distt. Ambala, Haryana.
133001 Mail: [email protected]
3. Superintendent of Posts Offices. Hisar Division, Hisar,
Distt. Hisar, 125001 Mail:
[email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post,
Hisar (East) under the office Superintendent of Post
Mail:[email protected] Offices, Distt. Hisar.
12500
.......Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(7) OA No. 060/1083/2022
Ravi age about 30 years son of Mahabir, resident of
village Nizampur Majra and P.O. Farmana, Tehsil
Kharkaunda, Distt. Sonipat and ex-Sorting
Assistant,HRO, RMS D Division, Nanakpura, New Delhi,
110001; (Group C)
.....Applicant
6 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
(By Advocate : Sh. G.P.S. Bal with Sh. S.S. Sangwan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Information Technology.
Department of Posts, Headquarter, Dak Bhawan.
Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 Mail: secretary
[email protected]
2. Appellate Authority-cum- the Postmaster General,
Haryana Circle, Ambala, Distt. Ambala, Haryana,
133001 Mail: [email protected]
3. Superintendent of Posts Offices. Hisar Division, Hisar,
Distt.Hisar, 125001 Mail: [email protected]
4. Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post,
Hisar (East) under the office Superintendent of Post
Offices, Hisar, Distt. Hisar, 125001
Mail:[email protected]
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Sharma)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. All the above seven Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.060/439/2022 (Sandeep Kohar Vs. Post Haryana Circle) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.
2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 7 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) against the impugned termination/dismissal order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar vide memo dated 12.09.2019 on the basis of impugned enquiry report dated 17.06.2019 of Inquiry Officer cum Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar and aggrieved by the action of appellate authority for wrongfully deciding the appeal of the applicant dated 16.04.2021 by passing order dated 19.01.2022.
3. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"8(ii) This Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure A-9) for terminating/dismissing the services of the applicant from the post of Postal Assistant, Postal Deptt. Govt. of India, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence as well as against the provisions of the Service Rules.
(ii) Further this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A/14) against appeal dated 16.4.2021.
(iii) This Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of the pay from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement into services and grant him all consequential benefits arising therefrom."
4. The facts as encapsulated by the applicant are that the Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala issued a Notification dated 11.08.2012 8 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) (Annexure A/1) for filling up posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant. The applicant applied against the said post and was allotted Roll No. 1711612797 for appearing in Aptitude Test (Paper I) and Computer Typing Test (Paper II). The applicant was provisionally selected to the post of Postal Assistant in Ambala Division vide selection letter dated 01.11.2013. The copies of list of provisionally selected candidates and selection letter dated 01.11.2023 are attached as Annexures A-2 and A-3 respectively.
5. It is further averred that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant against direct quota in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.
2400 at Fatehabad, MDG vide order dated
11.02.2014.
6. As per instructions dated 23/24.02.2016 of Postal Directorate, a committee was constituted to carry out a preventive vigilance check on examination related record and personal particulars submitted by the qualified candidates. On examination, the signatures of the applicant on OMR answer sheet and test evaluation sheet on being found different, 9 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) the same were sent for FSL, Shimla for report. The observations of the committee were confirmed by the CFSL Report dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure A-4). On 01.12.2017 (Annexure A-5), an inquiry was ordered against the applicant and he was charge sheeted under Articles of charges. On 17.06.2019 (Annexure A-6), the charges were proved against the applicant.
7. The applicant made a representation on 06.07.2019 (Annexure A-7) stating therein that the inquiry report is against the facts and without any evidence and that the CFSL report is not provided on record in accordance with law. On 05.08.2019 (Annexure A-
8), the applicant has got examined his documents and signatures from the private handwriting expert and in its report, it is found that the signatures of the applicant are genuine on the documents.
8. Vide order dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure A-9), the applicant was ordered to be dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed CWP No. 27001 of 2019 wherein the operation of the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 was stayed vide order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure A-10). However, 10 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) the respondent did not reinstate the applicant into service. The aforesaid CWP No. 27001 of 2019 was disposed of on 05.01.2021 (Annexure A-11) by directing the petitioner therein to avail the alternative remedy of approaching this Tribunal. The LPA filed against the order dated 05.01.2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure A-12). Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed a statutory appeal dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure A-13) before the appellate authority but the same was decided against the applicant by way of confirming the dismissal order on 19.02.2022 (Annexure A14). Hence this OA.
9. The respondents have contradicted the contentions raised by the applicant by relying on several judicial pronouncements and submitted that the Courts have no power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and that a Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. The respondents submit that the OA filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed as the charges stand established against the applicant on evidence. 11 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) Moreover, the penalty was lawfully imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the applicant and has been imposed on the proved misconduct. In catena of cases, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that the courts of law, may not ordinarily interfere with the punishment awarded. In Union of Idia Vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1215 : (1989) 2 SCR 19, the Apex Court has held that the quantum of punishment in a disciplinary case is within the domain of the competent authorities.
10. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Director Postal Training Centre Saharanpur observed that there may be some foul play in the selection process and accordingly, the matter was reported upon and inquiry was held at Directorate level confidentially and on the prima facie suspicion on the agency on the leakage of the Question Paper/Answer Key and violation of many of the provisions of the Agreements/Instructions of the Department by the Outsourcing Agency (M/s CMC) and possibility of involvement of outsiders, with or without connivance of M/s CMC. In the nutshell, it was evident that the examination process has been 12 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) compromised by the outsourced agency, M/s CMC Ltd. with the involvement of some other unidentified persons. Later on, the Postal Directorate advised the CPGMGs of eight Postal Circles including Haryana Circle to carry out a preventive vigilance check on the examination related records and personal particulars submitted by the qualified candidates in the PA/SA Examination 2011-12 by forming a Committee which committee examined the record related to selected candidates of PA/SA Examination 2011-12 and found that "Signatures of applicant on Data Entry and Typing Test Result Evaluation Sheets differ from signatures on his OMR Answer Sheet of Aptitude Test for Postal Assistant". This observation of the Committee was further got confirmed from Forensic Science Laboratory and accordingly a memo of charges was issued against the applicant vide Respondent No. 3 vide Memo dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure A-5). The applicant was also granted an opportunity to represent his side and he submitted his defence representation on 08.01.2018 denying the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the departmental inquiry was conducted against the 13 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report duly completed on 17.06.2019 (Annexure -6) to the Disciplinary Authority for further necessary action. The applicant was given chance to represent and he did so by filing representation dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure A-7). After due deliberation of complete case related documents, inquiry report, defence exhibits, statement of state witnesses vis-à-vis defence witnesses, defence representations, the penalty of "dismissal from service" was awarded to the charged official by the disciplinary authority vide memo dated 12.09.2019 (Annexure A-9) which was delivered to the charged official on 13.09.2019 and accordingly he was relieved from duty on 13.09.2019 (F/N) (Annexure R-10). The applicant filed an appeal dated 16.04.2021 against the order dated 12.09.2019 which has been rejected by the appellate authority vide Memo dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A-14). Hence, the respondents submit that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. 14 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
11. The learned counsel for the applicant did not choose to file any replication.
12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
13. It is an admitted fact that the applicant has been charge-sheeted with memorandum solely on the basis of mismatch of his specimen signatures with the disputed signatures taken during the course of examination. No other evidence except this mismatch is available on record in support of the charge Memorandum issued against the applicant. The allegation of impersonation is not based upon any objective assessment of applicant and proceeds on vague and unacceptable materials. Moreover, merely on the strength of handwriting expert's report, a conclusive opinion cannot be formed that applicant had cleared the examination by impersonation. The applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind as most of the reports are identically worded.
14. It is also an admitted fact that at all stages of examination i.e. aptitude written test, written test 15 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) and typing test, applicant had appeared alongwith valid identity card, and the authorities had permitted him to appear at all stages of examination only after being satisfied with regard to their identity, and there was no material to suspect applicant‟s candidature. Thus, the identity of the applicant was checked at all stages, and the allegation of impersonation made after substantially long period is not only vague and unsubstantiated, but is otherwise not established on the evidence adduced.
15. It can be seen that disputed signatures were made during the course of examination which took place in the year 2013, whereas the specimen signatures of the applicant were taken in the year 2017. The applicant submits that with the passage of time, chances of variation in the mode of writing of a person increases. The signatures of the applicant were not taken in slow, medium and fast speed so as to facilitate the examiner to reach at a correct conclusion. The evidence of handwriting expert in no case can be treated as conclusive to hold anyone guilty of using malpractices in the examination. The opinion of handwriting expert is a weak type of 16 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) evidence which cannot be used as substantial piece of evidence. 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 case, it is submitted that the applicant had been issued charge sheet solely, on the basis of opinion of the handwriting expert, which cannot be sustained in law.
16. The Hon‟ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in a similar case of Ashish kumar M Patel O.A. No. 127/2022 decided on 04.05.2023 has held as under:-
"11. In the present matter, the applicant got offer of provisional appointment after passing of the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Respondents never said that the applicant was tainted or suspected of having indulged in malpractices at the time of issuing offer of appointment letter. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any allegation against the applicants of their indulgence in any malpractice during examination. We do not find any complaint on record against the applicants by anyone including invigilator or any employee of the private company M/s CMC Ltd. who conducted the examination. The name of the any of the applicants does not find place as suspected person in the vigilance report. Therefore it is clear that appointments to the applicants were accorded presuming them as "not suspected". Otherwise also, as per the directions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, suspected persons could not be granted appointment. However, the 17 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) department in the present matter initiated departmental proceedings against the applicants without prima facie coming to the conclusion that they were tainted candidates or were suspected of having used malpractices in the examination. Even for suspected persons, Hon‟ble Apex Court directed the respondents to personally call and explain the allegations against them and give some reasonable time of about a week or 10 days to give reply and then take a final decision. However, in the present matter, applicants though were not showed as tainted persons, were issued with charge sheet without any prior notice or opportunity against the allegation of malpractice or misconduct. The procedure adopted by the respondents is thus not in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. As per the directions, action was required to be taken only against the suspected or tainted persons, that too, after affording them the opportunity of hearing. In the present matter, the respondents in utter violation of the direction of Hon‟ble Apex Court, proceeded in a strange manner by issuing charge sheet against the applicants who were appointed on the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant pursuant to order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore the appointment orders issued in favour of the applicants inherently pre-supposes that they were not suspected of having used malpractices in the examination. Hon‟ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.12.2018 further clarified that the candidates who were tainted or suspected of having committed any malpractices were not entitled to get appointment letter. Here, after getting appointment, no inquiry or investigation was conducted regarding malpractices indulged into by the applicants during examination. Assuming that the conditions applicable to cases of reinstatement were also applicable to the applicants who got fresh appointment pursuant to order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, we are of the view that something adverse 18 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) must be found against the applicants in the investigation to be conducted in compliance of the order of Hon‟ble Apex Court after according appointments to the applicants. It is admitted position that before issuing charge Memorandum, no investigation was conducted by any authority or by police or any other agency into the alleged malpractices alleged to be used by the any employees who were accorded appointment. As earlier stated, the applicants were neither tainted persons at the time of their appointment on the post of Postal Assistant nor anything adverse against them was found in any investigation to be conducted pursuant to directions made by Hon‟ble Apex Court. The applicants have been chargesheeted with memorandum solely on the basis of mismatch of their specimen signatures with the disputed signatures taken during the course of examination. No other evidence except this mismatch is available on record in support of the charge Memorandum issued against the applicants. After perusal of the articles of charge with the statement of imputations, we find that charge of misconduct and misbehaviour as also failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty have been framed solely based upon CFSL report without any other supporting evidence of misconduct. The charge Memorandum is very vague and ambiguous having no basis. Mismatch of signature taken after a gap of 5 years ipso facto in no case can be termed as misconduct or mis-behaviour. Mismatch of signature or handwriting may be a corroborative piece of evidence in support of substantive evidence with regard to any specific allegation. In the present case, if we read the articles of charges along with statement of imputation, we are unable to understand the nature of charge. As contended by learned counsel for the applicants, charge of impersonation was not framed against any of the applicants and the same cannot be presumed to be there. In the absence of specific charge of impersonation, the 19 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) charge of having indulged in malpractices during the examination cannot be framed against the applicant.
Regarding mismatch of the specimen signature with disputed signatures i.e., which is Typing Evaluation Sheet and Data Entry Evaluation Sheet, we are in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that so many reasons may be there for mismatch of the writing. In the present matter, disputed signatures were made during the course of examination which took place in the year 2015, whereas the specimen signatures of the applicants were taken in the year 2019. It cannot be denied that with the passage of time, chances of variation in the mode of writing of a person increases. It is also pertinent to note that any admitted signatures of the applicants were not sent to CFSL for comparison with the disputed signature. Apart from it, it has not been made clear that at what speed the specimen signatures were taken from the applicants. In our view, specimen signature should be taken in slow, medium and fast speed so as to facilitate the examiner to reach at a correct conclusion. We are of the view that with change of speed there are chances of variation in the mode of words written by anyone. The evidence of handwriting expert in no case can be treated as conclusive to hold anyone guilty of using malpractices in the examination. The opinion of handwriting expert is a weak type of evidence which cannot be used as substantial piece of evidence. 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 the applicants had been issued charge sheet solely, on the basis of opinion of the handwriting expert, which cannot be sustained in law. To substantiate our view, it will be appropriate to refer relevant portions of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicants.20 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
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.
13. In view of the above legal position on use of expert opinion, we are of the opinion that the respondent has committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicants solely on the basis of handwriting expert and without conducting any inquiry. Further, the allegations made against the applicants are stigmatic in nature, attracting the penalty of removal and dismissal from service. Therefore, such type of allegations should not be levelled against the applicant in such a casual manner that too without issuing any notice to the applicants for explaining their conduct and defence. Record reveals that there is no other evidence against the applicants in support of the charge levelled against them. The respondent neither investigated itself the allegation against the applicants nor got it investigated through any investigating agency like police. No reason has been assigned for not registering the criminal case for alleged impersonation. As stated earlier, there 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 21 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) which on the face of it seems to be factually incorrect. The respondent did not issue „non availability certificate‟ to the applicants before denying the copy of the additional documents. The respondents never said that the demanded documents were irrelevant for defence. The applicants had sought the copies of the some additional documents with a view to establish their presence in the centre at the time of taking examination. Respondents even denied the copy of the attendance sheet, which in our opinion was material in the matter. In view of the above, respondent committed grave error in not providing copies of relevant documents and not permitting defence witnesses on account of which, the defence of the applicants had been prejudiced.
It is also relevant to mention that after issuance of the charge sheet, the applicants had made representations, wherein they raised grievance against the taking of specimen signatures and also questioned the procedure adopted by the respondent in issuing charge sheet against them based on the mismatch of signatures without investigating the matter. However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the representations, appointed the IO and PO, which is also in violation of the principle of service jurisprudence. The respondents were not right in contending that the applicants would get opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them in inquiry. In our considered opinion, if the disciplinary proceeding is permitted to continue despite above said infirmities, then applicants would suffer irreparable loss. The allegation against the applicants are stigmatic in nature. Therefore they would not be able to get opportunity of obtaining another job till continuation of this inquiry. In addition to it, during continuation of the inquiry, they would have to face mental agony and bad reputation. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the charge memorandum issued against the applicants cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
"
17. The 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."22 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs)
18. 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 Ramachandran 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.
19. 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 23 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) handwriting expert and without conducting any inquiry. ..."
20. That the Hon‟ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in case of Shri Shiv Shankar vs Union of India & others O.A. No. 3210/2022 decided on 28.07.2023, while relying upon the judgement passed by the Ahmedabad bench of this Tribunal in Ashish Kumar M. Patel's case (supra)has held as under:-
"3. After going through the judgment quoted above carefully and comparing it to the contents of the present OA, we are convinced that the issue under our consideration deserves to be decided on the analogy of the judgment quoted above.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents while agreeing that there may be some similarity vehemently opposes the OA, arguing that the issue to be decided is disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and each case of disciplinary proceeding has to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, the analogy of a judgment in one particular case may not hold good in another. However, she agrees that the facts may bear close similarity.
5. We have perused the documents on record and given a patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the close similarity between judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and the present Original Application, there is no cause for us to take a view which could be at divergence. Therefore, the present OA is allowed and the impugned Memorandum dated 08.03.2021 is quashed and set aside."
21. In view of the discussed law points and the close similarity between judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and the present Original Applications, 24 (OA No. 060/439/2022 and 6 connected OAs) there is no cause for us to take a view which could be at divergence. Therefore, all the present OAs are allowed and all the impugned orders terminating/dismissing the services of the applicants from the post of Postal Assistant, Postal Department, Government of India, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence as well as against the provisions of the Service Rules are hereby quashed. The orders passed on the appeals thereto are also quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. All the consequential benefits flowing out of this judgement be released to the applicants within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
22. There shall be no order so as to costs.
23. A copy of this order be placed in the other connected files.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*