Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that allegation of impersonation is not based upon any objective assessment of petitioners' candidature and proceeds on vague and unacceptable materials. Submission is that merely on the strength of handwriting expert's report a conclusive opinion cannot be formed that petitioners had cleared the examination by impersonation. The order is also said to have been passed without due application of mind as most of the reports are identically worded. According to petitioners, the allegations of impersonation are not made out on the basis of materials adduced. It is also urged that the materials relied upon against the petitioners to hold that they have resorted to impersonation was never provided to them, nor they had any opportunity to confront it, and therefore, the principles of natural justice has been breached in the process. It is also contended that the order being stigmatic and punitive in nature clearly carried civil consequences and could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and permitting the petitioners an opportunity to confront the materials relied upon against them.

"8. That after careful and thorough examination of original documents in respect of petitioners in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery with the scientific aids available in Govt. of India Laboratory, the CFSL submitted their Examination Report to CRPF returned to dossier of the petitioners alongwith Expert opinion to Staff Selection Commission (CR), Allahabad for further necessary action.
9. That the detailed opinion of CFSL clearly establishes that the petitioners had procured impersonation in the written part of the Examination and it also confirmed that the petitioners had tried to secure Govt. job by fraudulent means. The CFSL while submitting their opinion also submitted the reason of reaching to the conclusion that the handwritings and signatures available on the Admission Certificate of Written part of the Examination did not tally with the specimen signatures and handwritings obtained by the CAPF at subsequent stage of the Examination. Further, the CFSL while submitting their report also opined about the identical signature, handwriting etc. available on the document of different stage of the examinations other than written part of the Examination, which also proves that the petitioners had procured impersonation in the written part of the examination. ....."

20. Conclusion of the employer/Commission that petitioners had impersonated if was based upon matching of the thumb impression or the photograph then it was definitely entitled to greater respect. Such a conclusion, based only upon the handwriting expert's opinion, however, would not be justified. The judgments in Pradeep Fauzdar (supra), Sanjeev Kumar (supra) and Abhishek Kumar (supra) are, therefore, distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as Commission's conclusion of impersonation in the present case is not based upon evaluation/matching of thumb impression.

22. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajesh Kumar (supra) had examined a similar controversy, where services of a probationer was dispensed with by the Bank, on the ground that he had cleared recruitment exam on the basis of impersonation. This Court observed that handwriting expert's opinion is at best an expert opinion, which is not conclusive. Observation of the learned Single Judge is apposite for our purposes and is reproduced hereinafter:-

"Expert opinion is only an opinion and has been considered to be of a very weak nature. The decision of the bank is based on the expert opinion alone to establish the guilt of impersonation.