Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. From perusal of the Judgment of the Tribunal, the Honble High Court and the Honble Apex Court, it is evident that although Original Applications were allowed but a liberty was given to the respondents to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry in accordance with law. Hence, liberty was given to the respondents for conducting the fresh enquiry. A show cause notice was served to the respondents and thereafter the enquiry was conducted by the EO. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the respondents in the earlier O.As as well as in the present OAs placed reliance on the report of SSC based on the report of GEQD, learned counsel also argued that in the present enquiry conducted in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal, the respondents conducted the enquiry placing reliance on the report of the SSC based on the report of GEQD, and that the respondents committed gross illegality in placing reliance on the report of SSC based on the report of handwriting expert and that the Honble High Court set aside the finding. It has also been argued that the SSC did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. No opportunity of being heard was afforded to the applicants and the SSC out rightly placed reliance on the report of GEQD as if the report of GEQD is gospel truth. We have perused the Judgment passed by the Honble High Court and regarding the role played by the SSC, the Honble High Court commented as follows: -

9. A show cause notice was served to the applicants to the effect It was intimated by the Staff Selection Commission, Central Region, Allahabad that the signature and handwriting of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jaiswal, Roll No. 2428463, Rank Number 7/SLY/0176/YO, as available in his application form of Recruitment of Clerk, 1996 Examination and the specimen handwriting provided by him, did not tally with that in the photo bearing attendance sheet of the Written Examination/Type Writing Test and script of Written Examination/Type test. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the reliance was placed on the report of the SSC based on the report of GEQD. Final enquiry report is also before us. It has been commented by the EO in the report After backtracking from his earlier stand the CO objected that the opinion and covering letter were attested copies and not the original one, and hence cannot be relied upon. Prosecution side argued that these attested documents were communicated to this office on 25.06.2002 by the Staff Selection Commission (CR) Allahabad and therefore no question regarding its authenticity should arise. The defence side argued that the listed documents must be produced by any witness. In this reference it is stated that there is no witness from the prosecution side as Annexure IV is Nil. However it is submitted that the documents were received in this office through official communication forwarded by the Staff Selection Commission. Therefore, there is no doubt regarding its authenticity and genuineness. Hence, perusal of the report shows that much reliance has been placed on the report of SSC based on the report of the GEQD. It is also material that even the original report was not submitted during the enquiry on the record and only attested copies were submitted and the certified copy was relied as if it cannot be tampered with. It has further been commented by the EO As far as documents from the prosecution side are concerned both the documents are authentic and genuine. The first one i.e. certified copy of the opinion of (Government examiner of Questioned Documents) Shimla has been received from the Staff Selection Commission 25.06.2002 in this office. Regarding its authenticity it is to submit that the documents were issued by a Government department and attested copies were communicated to this office by a Government Department i.e. Staff Selection Commission. Therefore, no question may arise regarding its authenticity. Firstly, the report of the GEQD was accepted as the evidence without if and but as a gospel truth and that it cannot be questioned. Moreover, even the certified copy was relied by the EO in the report as it was issued by a Government department. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that all the proceedings conducted by the EO show that no fresh enquiry was conducted regarding the fact that whether on behalf of the applicants somebody else appeared in the examination and that unfair means were used by the applicants in order to procure the appointment. On the basis of the report of the GEQD, the EO reached on the conclusion that the charges are undoubtedly sustainable in view of the opinion of the expert agency i.e. GEQD, Shimla.

Experts opinion, made to rely upon  Experts opinion obtained by Disciplinary authority after getting Inquiry report  Experts opinion relied upon without putting him for cross examination by the applicant  Held the science of Handwriting was complex and opinion of expert not supported by reasons could not be relied upon without being tested. Hence, in view of the Judgment of the Honble High Court of H.P., the report of the handwriting expert, even of the Government handwriting expert, cannot be placed reliance blindly, and the handwriting expert must be produced in evidence for cross examination. In the present case, the handwriting expert was not called in order to prove his report during the course of enquiry, and without proof the reliance was placed on the report of the GEQD. In our opinion, this is wholly wrong approach of the EO to accept the report of the GEQD as a gospel truth, and placing reliance on the report of handwriting expert without his presence in the witness box for cross-examination. EO is wholly unjustified in commenting that the report of the handwriting expert cannot be questioned, and it has to be accepted as it is. Firstly, the enquiry was not conducted in the presence of the applicants. Moreover, photographs by the Government experts were not taken in the presence of the applicants hence it cannot be said that whether the photographs were taken by the Government handwriting expert of the relevant documents. Besides the report of the handwriting expert, there could have been a lot of evidence in order to proof that some imposter appeared in the examination on behalf of the applicants. The Invigilator, who was present in the examination hall at the time of the examination, and Centre In charge could have been the best witness to prove this fact. It is also a fact that this matter was not detected by the Invigilator at the time of examination that some imposter appeared on behalf of the applicants. It was much after the examination that the SSC came to the conclusion that some imposter appeared and hence the applicants were called for specimen signature so that same can be sent to the Government expert for comparison. Moreover, the answer sheets submitted by the applicants could have been most material piece of evidence in order to prove that. It was not sufficient for the respondents to place a reliance on the report of GEQD called by the SSC without producing the original report as well as the documents, which were sent for comparison to the handwriting expert. Even the EO was competent to arrive at a conclusion independently to the GEQD, on the basis of documents produced before him that some imposter appeared on behalf of the applicants in the examination but no such exercise was done by the EO on this fact.

11. The report of expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been provided in the Section 45 When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Hence, the report is admissible under Section 45 and there is catena of Judgment of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court, which provides that without producing the handwriting expert in the witness box, the report cannot be accepted as a material piece of evidence or as a gospel truth. The report of the handwriting expert is a piece of evidence like other evidence and it has got no special signifies as has been relied by the EO as a gospel truth. The opinion of the handwriting expert has to be based with the reasons given by him and also there must be expert advise. The handwriting expert is not required to decide the matter conclusively and the matter cannot be decided conclusively merely on the report of the handwriting expert without procuring his attendance and he should have been put to the applicants for cross examination. Whereas in the present case, the report of the handwriting expert has been accepted as a gospel truth and the EO has not tested the authenticity of the report of the GEQD and he proceeded to accept the report of GEQD with the presumption that he cannot lie or cannot commit mistake, in our opinion, this was most unjustified on the part of the EO. The opinion of the handwriting expert is required to be tested in cross examination. But at no point of time, the EO had considered it essential to procure the attendance of the handwriting expert. Even an application was moved on behalf of the applicant to summon the GEQD in order to prove his report but his request was turned down and it was not considered by the EO essential that the original report must come on record, only a certified copy of report of GEQD has been relied and nothing has been heard by the EO regarding the genuineness and authenticity of the report of GEQD. There are numerous Judgments on the point that the report of an expert may be in favour of the side which calls them and hence the evidence of the expert should be approached with considerable caution especially where much depends on the evidence, and the report of the handwriting expert is not binding on the EO. In the present case, as per the opinion of the EO, the report of the handwriting expert was a material piece of evidence and reliance was to be placed solitary on this report hence the extra precaution should have been taken by the EO on placing reliance on this report and the handwriting expert should have been called in the evidence on behalf of the prosecution and not on behalf of the defence. Moreover, EO turned down the request of the applicants to examine the handwriting expert in defence. The Honble Apex Court in AIR 1963 SC (1728) Ishwari Prasad Misra vs. Mohammad Isa held that evidence given by experts of handwriting can never be conclusive, because it is, after all, opinion evidence. Hence, as it is an opinion so it is not sufficient or it is not justified on behalf of the Enquiry Officer to place reliance on the report of the handwriting expert. The Judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326 Fakhruddin vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh is also relevant regarding the expert opinion, and in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, the statement of handwriting expert is also an opinion and the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness. There are also various Judgments of the Honble Apex Court regarding the admissibility of the experts opinion.