Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi vs Defence on 22 May, 2024
1
OA No.2592/22
Item No.15
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.2592/2022
This the 22nd day of May, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member(A)
Ravi, age 25 years
S/o Sh. Hukam Singh
H. No.372, Ajit Singh Tokas
Munirka Village, New Delhi-67.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi
Dua and Ms. Vaishali Sulkhlan)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary
M/o Defece, South Block
New Delhi-110011.
2. The Joint Secretary & CAO
Govt. of India, M/o Defence
Defence Offices Complex
Afric Avenue, Delhi-110029.
(Old Address:- Room No. 170, E-Block
Dara Sukoh Road, Near Sena Bhawan
New Delhi-110011)
3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission
Block No.12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y.P. Singh)
2
OA No.2592/22
Item No.15
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, M(J) With the consent of the parties the matter has been taken up today for final hearing. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"8.1 To quash and set aside the order dated 16.9.2020 and to further direct the respondents that offer of appointment dated 19.6.2020 be restored and further applicant be allowed to join the duty to the post of JSA (Junior Secretariat Assistant) in M/o Defence with all consequential benefit including seniority, promotion and pay and allowance. 8.2 To quash and set aside the order dated 18.05.2022, 20.04.2022 and 05.08.2022."
2. The candidature of the applicant for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant(JSA) has been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2020. The applicant is also aggrieved by orders dated 18.05.2022, 20.05.2022 and 05.08.2022. His candidature has been rejected due to the mis-matching of the signatures/handwriting and as such his dossiers had been sent to the CFSL laboratory for verification.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and drawing 3 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 attention to the fact that there are two CFSL reports;
the first one is dated 27.01.2021 and the second report is dated 08.04.2022. The relevant portion of the second report reads as under:-
"Result of examination The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined and I am of the opinion that:
1. The person who wrote the enclosed writings stamped and marked S15 and S24 to S42 did not write the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q12.
2. Opinion on Q1 to Q11 has already been expressed vide this laboratory opinion number CFSL @/1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/186 dated 27.01.2021."
The second part of the aforesaid report relies upon the report dated 27.1.2021, wherein it has been stated as under:-
"The documents of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined and I am of the opinion that:
1. The enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q11 and S1 to S23 have been written by one and the same person.
2. It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding authorship or otherwise on the questioned writings stamped and arked Q12 when compared with the supplied standard writings marked S1, S4, S6, S7 and S15 for the manifest reasons that the writing characteristics as occurring in teh questioned writings are not accounted for from the supplied standard writings. For thorough scientific examination and analysis as well as the study the nature and extent of variation of writing habits of the person concerned few more specimen writings written to dictation with fast speed on several sheets alongwith contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings written during normal course of routine containing similar letter and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings 4 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 by the person concerned are required. Such admittedly genuine writings may available on some existing documents e.g. note books, personal diary, official and personal correspondence, some official records etc. The report dated 27.01.2021 gives the finding in favour of the applicant.
Q1 to Q11 are the signature and handwriting of the applicant on admission certificate of CHSL(10+2) Examination i.e. computer skill tent and Tier-I Examination. The only space left for questioning was Q12 i.e. handwriting on admission certificate on CHSL (10+2) Tier-I examination. As per the report dated 27.1.2021 of CFSL, Q11 which is signature of the applicant is Tier-I Examination matches with that of his sample signature taken in S1 to S23. Once, as per the report of CFSL, the signature matches in the Tier-I examination, it confirms that come what may a finding of impersonation cannot be given against the applicant on the basis of CFSL report."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the CFSL report dated 08.04.2022 (first part) is of no consequence, once the CFSL report dated 27.1.2021 has stated that the signature of applicant in Tier-I on admission certificate matches with that of sample given by applicant on S1 to S23 sheets.
5. Further, learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that it is imperative that the thumb impression is almost scientific which were readily available with the respondents authorities and could have been compared after obtaining further samples 5 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 of thumb impressions of the applicant. He further states that since there are two contrary reports one in favour of the applicant and merely on the basis of some observation qua the hand writing vis-a-vis the signature, there is no justification to reject the candidature of the applicant out rightly without giving a reasonable opportunity and following the due process of law.
6. It is further contended that it is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case that the thumb impression ought to have been matched before arriving at a conclusion. Both the reports relied upon by the respondents is not a conclusive determination of the fact whether there is mis-match in hand writing/signatures without even verifying the genuineness of the thumb impression as such.
7. Countering the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He further contends that the decision has been taken by the competent authority in right perspective following the due process of law.
6 OA No.2592/22Item No.15 He further states that despite two CFSL reports which do not find the favour of the applicant and as such the respondents are not at fault.
8. He draws attention to the following paragraphs of the counter affidavit:-
"4.3 That in reply to the contents of para 4.3 of the OA it is submitted that Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued notification of Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2 Examination-2017 on 18-
11-2017 (Annexure/R-1). After declaration of final result they forwarded dossiers of the selected candidates including that of Mr. Ravi (Rank-345) on 16-01-2020 (Annexure/R-2). Vide respondents' letter dated 31-01-2020 (Annexure/R-3) he was forwarded 05 sets of Attestation forms to be filled up by the candidate which also includes acceptance form. After acceptance by the candidate, pre- recruitment formalities were initiated. Pre- recruitment formalities includes verification of Character and Antecedents from the concerned District Authorities from which candidate belong to and Medical Fitness Certificate from District Medical Officer/Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon. After receiving the character verification report, he was issued offer of appointment vide letter number A/51383/CHSLE-2017/Rank-SL/345/CAO/R-3 dated 19-06-2020 (Annexure/R-4). The individual reported for joining and his original documents were checked and handwriting samples were also collected. Before issuing appointment order, the handwritings and signatures of the applicant was compared with the one which are found in the Admit Card (Tier-I & Tier-II) of Combined Higher Secondary Level examination- 2017. On examining the handwritings and signatures of the applicant, it was found that they were at variance. Thereafter, the same were forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh on 16-09-2020 and the individual was also informed vide respondents? letter dated 16-09-2020 (Annexure/R-5). CFSL vide their File No. CFSL(C)-1736/2020/DOCICX- 138/2020/5445 dated 28-01-2021 forwarded their 7 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 examination report (Annexure/R-6). The report is reproduced below:
(1) The enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q11 & S1 to S23 have been written by one and the same person.
(ii) It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding authorship or otherwise on the questioned writings stamped and marked Q12 when compared with the supplied standard writings marked S1, S4, S6, S7 and S15 for the manifest reasons that the writing characteristics as occurring in the questioned writings are not accounted for from the supplied standard writings. For thorough scientific examination and analysis as well as to study the nature of extent of variation of writing habits of the person concerned few more specimen writings written to dictation with fast speed On several sheets alongwith contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings written during normal course of routine containing similar letters and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings by the person concerned are required. Such admittedly genuine writings may available on some existing documents e.g. note books, personal diary, official and personal correspondence, some official record etc. With the approval of the Appointing Authority (AnnexureR-7) more samples were collected and forwarded to CFSL on 11-03-2021 (Annexure/R-8). CFSL vide their File No.(C)-
949/2021/DOC/CX-190/2021/50 dated 08-04-2022 gives their examination report (Annexure/R-CFSL9). The report is reproduced below:-
(i) The person who wrote the enclosed writings stamped and marked S15 and S24 to S42 did not write the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q12.
(ii) Opinion on Q1 to Q11 has already been expressed vide this laboratory opinion number CFSL(C)-1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/5445 dated 28-01-2021. Thereafter with the approval of the Competent Authority on 06-05-2022(Annexure/R-
10), the dossier was forwarded to SSC for cancellation of the candidature of the individual on 18-05-2022 and the individual was also intimated vide letter dated 18-05-2022 (Annexure/R-11), It is also mentioned that his representation dated 05-04- 8 OA No.2592/22
Item No.15 2022 (Annexure/R-12) was replied vide respondents' letter dated 20-05-2022(Annexure/R-
13) after duly approved by the competent authority on 19-05-2022.
CFSL is a premier institution which is creditable and accepted by the Government Authorities. The action taken on the basis of the report of specialised agency i.e. CFSL cannot be said to be arbitrary or biased against the Applicant. The candidature of the Applicant has been cancelled by the Competent Authority in accordance with the instructions of notice of examination.
4.19 In reply to the contents of para 4.I9 of the OA, it is submitted that after receiving the character verification report, he was issued offer of appointment vide letter number A/51383/CHSLE- 2017/Rank-SL/345/CAOR-2 dated 19-06-2020. The individual reported for joining and his original documents were checked and handwriting samples were also collected. Before issuing appointment order, the handwritings and signatures of the applicant compared with the one which are found in the Admit Card (Tier-I & Tier-II) of Combined Higher Secondary Level examination - 2017. On examining the handwritings and signatures of the applicant, it was found that they were at variance. Thereafter, the same were forwarded to Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh on 16-09- 2020 and the individual was also informed vide our letter dated 16-09-2020. CFSL vide their File No. CFSL(C)-1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/5445 dated 28-01-2021 forwarded their examination report. Details already given to reply of Para 4.3 above and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity. Para 4.20 In reply to the contents of para 4.20 of the OA, it is submitted that Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued notification of Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination-2017 on 18-11-2017. After declaration of final result they forwarded dossiers of the selected candidates including that of Mr. Ravi (Rank-345) on 16.01.2020. Vide our letter dated 31-01-2020, he was forwarded 05 sets of Attestation forms to be filled up by the candidate which also includes acceptance form. After acceptance by the candidate, pre-recruitment formalities were initiated. Pre- recruitment formalities includes verification of 9 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 Character and Antecedents from the concerned District Authorities from which candidate belong to and Medical Fitness Certificate from District Medical Officer/Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon. After receiving the character verification report, he was issued offer of appointment vide letter number A/S1383/CHSLE-2017/Rank-SL/345/CAO/R-3 dated 19-06-2020. The individual reported for joining and his original documents were checked and handwriting samples were also collected. Before issuing appointment order, the handwritings and signatures of the applicant was compared with the one which are found in the Admit Card (Tier-I & Tier-II) of Combined Higher Secondary Level examination - 2017. On examining the handwritings and signatures of the applicant, it was found that they were at variance. Thereafter, the same were forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh on 16-09-2020 and the individual was also informed vide our Letter dated 16/09/2020, CFSL vide their File No. CFSL(C)- 1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/5445 dated 28-01- 2021 forwarded their examination report. The report is reproduced below:-
(i) The enclosed writings and signatures stamped and Q1 to Q11 & S1 to S23 have been written by one and the same person.
(ii) It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding authorship or otherwise on the questioned writings stamped and marked Q12 when compared with the supplied standard writings marked S1, S4, S6, S7 and S15 for the manifest reasons that the writing characteristics as occurring in the questioned writings are not accounted for from the supplied standard writings. For thorough scientific examination and analysis as well as to study the nature of extent of variation of writing habits of the person concerned few more specimen writings written to dictation with fast speed On several sheets along with contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings written during normal course of routine containing similar letters and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings by the person concerned are required. Such admittedly genuine writings may available on some existing documents e.g. note books, personal diary, official and personal correspondence, some official record etc. 10 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 With the approval of the Appointing Authority(Annexure/R-7) more samples were collected and forwarded to CFSL on 11-03-2021.
CFSL vide their File No. CFSL (C)-
949/2021/DOC/CX-190/2021/50 dated 08.04.2022 gives their Para 4.31 In reply to the content of para 4.31 of the OA, it is submitted that Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued notification of Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination-2017 on 18.1.2017. After declaration of final result they forwarded dossiers of the selected candidates including that of Mr. Ravi (Rank-345) on 16.01.2020. Vide our letter dated 31-01-2020, the applicant was forwarded 05 sets of Attestation forms to be filled up by the candidate which also includes acceptance form. After acceptance by the candidate, pre-recruitment formalities were initiated. Pre-
recruitment formalities includes verification of Character and Antecedents from the concerned District Authorities from which candidate belong to and Medical Fitness Certificate from District Medical Officer/Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon. After receiving the character verification report, he was issued offer of appointment vide letter number A/S1383/CHSLE-2017/Rank-SL/345/CAO/R-3 dated 19-06-2020, The individual reported for joining and his original documents were checked and handwriting samples were also collected. Before issuing appointment order, the handwritings and signatures of the applicant was compared with the one which are found in the Admit Card (Tier-l & Tier-II) of Combined Higher Secondary Level examination - 2017. On examining the handwritings and signatures of the applicant, it was found that they were at variance. Thereafter, the same were forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh on 16-09-2020 and the individual was also informed vide our Letter dated 16/09/2020. CFSL vide their File No. CFSL(C)- 1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/5445 dated 28-01- 2021 forwarded their examination report. The report is reproduced below:-
() The enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q11 & S1 to S23 have been written 11 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15
(ii) by one and the same person. It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding authorship Or otherwise on the questioned writings stamped and marked Q12 011 when compared with the supplied standard writings marked S1, S4, S6, S7 and S15 for the manifest reasons that the writing characteristics as occurring in the questioned writings are not accounted for from the supplied standard writings. For thorough scientific examination and analysis as well as to study the nature of extent of variation of writing habits of the person concerned few more specimen writings written to dictation with fast speed On several sheets alongwith contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings written during normal course of routine containing similar letters and their combinations as occurring in the questioned writings by the person concerned are required. Such admittedly genuine writings may available on some existing documents e.g. note books, personal diary, official and personal correspondence, some official record etc. With the approval of the Appointing Authority, more samples were collected and forwarded to CFSL on 11-03-2021. CFSL vide their File No. CFSL (C)-
949/202 1/DOC/CX-190/2021/50 dated 08-04-2022 gives their examination report. The report is reproduced below:-
i) The person who wrote the enclosed writings stamped and marked S15 and S24 to S42 did not write the enclosed writings stamped and marked Q12.
(ii) Opinion on Q1 to Q11 has already been expressed vide this laboratory opinion number CFSL(C) 1736/2020/DOC/CX-138/2020/5445 dated 28-01-2021. Thereafter with the approval of the Competent Authority on 06-05-2022, the dossier was forwarded to SSC for cancellation of the candidature of the individual on 18-05-2022 and the individual was also intimated vide letter dated 18-
05-2022. It is als0 mentioned that his representation dated 05-04-2022 was replied vide letter dated 20-05-2022 after duly approved by the competent authority on 19-05-2022. CFSL is a premier institution which is creditable and accepted by the Government Authorities. The action taken on the basis of the report of specialised agency i.e. 12 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 CFSL cannot be said to be arbitrary or biased against the Applicant. The candidature of the Applicant has been cancelled by the Competent Authority in accordance with the instructions of notice of examination. The same was forwarded to SSC for cancellation. The notification of the examination stated that the Commission's decision is final."
9. We have heard the counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
Analysis
10. On the above narrative facts without repeating them and for the sake of brevity it is apparent that there is a contradiction between the two reports of CFSL as mentioned hereinabove. It is also admitted position that despite the contradictory position, the respondents' authorities ought to have compared the thumb impression of the applicant herein and thereafter only a decision regarding cancellation of candidature of the applicant should have been taken.
11. It is also an admitted position in the facts that there is variance of hand writing as such in Q(12) i.e. one of the questioned documents. However, it is also apparent that there is no mis-match in signatures. It is only qua the variance of signatures due to which 13 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 the report is sought to be relied upon by the respondents against the applicant.
12. In similar circumstances in identical situation this Tribunal in OA No.3221/2008 was pleased to pass the following Order on 11.01.2024:-
"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."
13. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the candidature of the applicant is restored. The Respondents are directed to call the applicant and obtain his thumb impression and send the same to the CFSL and only after the 14 OA No.2592/22 Item No.15 CFSL report is received and the question of impersonation with respect to the applicant is clearly established, the candidature of the applicant may be processed and taken to a 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.
14. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
15. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member(A) Member(J) /vb/