A charge memorandum based solely on uncorroborated handwriting-expert opinion is legally unsustainable.

The applicant participated in the direct recruitment examination for the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for the vacancy years 2011–12 and 2013–14 and, after being declared successful, joined the Postal Department.

Subsequently, the respondents received information concerning alleged impersonation and other irregularities in the examination and initiated an inquiry involving, inter alia, the applicant.

The applicant’s OMR sheets and other documents were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for expert examination, and, on the basis of the CFSL report, the respondents issued a charge memorandum against him.

The applicant challenged the charge memorandum and related action before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, he relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in OA No. 4260/2024, OA No. 730/2025 and connected matters, which had dealt with materially similar charge memoranda based substantially on handwriting-expert opinion.

Whether the charge memorandum issued against the applicant, founded substantially or solely on the CFSL/handwriting-expert opinion concerning alleged impersonation or signature mismatch, could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence and a proper investigation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the same relief granted by the coordinate Bench in materially similar cases concerning the same examination-related allegations.

The Tribunal applied the principle that expert evidence, including handwriting-expert opinion, is only opinion evidence and is inherently weak unless supported by substantial internal or external corroboration.

It relied on Ram Vijay Singh v. Union of India and the observations in Rajesh Kumar and Tikkaram v. Doulat Ram that expert testimony must be considered with other evidence and cannot, by itself, establish misconduct.

It further relied on Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091, and Ramchandra v. State, AIR 1957 SC 361, for the rule that it is unsafe to base a finding of guilt solely on handwriting-expert opinion without corroboration.

The Tribunal also followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in OA No. 127/2022 and connected matters dated 4 May 2023, as affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Kumar, R/SCA No. 18023/2023, decided on 5 August 2024; the Tribunal noted that the relevant Special Leave Petition had been dismissed and that the decision had attained finality.

The governing procedural principles also required a fair opportunity to meet the allegations, disclosure of relevant defence material, and a proper investigation before initiating stigmatic disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case was substantially similar to the cases already decided by the coordinate Bench, where charge memoranda based on handwriting or signature comparison were quashed because there was no adequate corroborative evidence, independent investigation, or fair disclosure of relevant material.

The earlier decisions held that expert opinion could not, standing alone, justify disciplinary proceedings involving serious allegations of impersonation, particularly where the department had not produced supporting evidence such as a specific complaint, investigation report, attendance records, CCTV footage, or other material connecting the employee with the alleged malpractice.

Since the coordinate Bench’s view had been affirmed by the Gujarat High Court and had attained finality, the Tribunal found no reason to adopt a different approach in the applicant’s case.

It therefore applied the same relief to the applicant.

The impugned charge memorandum and all subsequent proceedings taken pursuant to it were set aside; the applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.