A charge memorandum cannot rest solely on uncorroborated handwriting-expert opinion absent proper inquiry.

The applicant participated in the Department of Posts’ direct recruitment examination for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for the vacancy year 2011–12 and, after being declared successful, joined service.

Subsequently, the respondents received information regarding alleged impersonation and other irregularities in the examination and initiated an inquiry concerning several candidates, including the applicant.

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

The applicant challenged the charge memorandum before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4260/2024 with O.A. No. 730/2025 and connected matters, which had followed the Ahmedabad Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 127/2022 and related cases concerning similar examination-related proceedings.

Whether a charge memorandum issued substantially on the basis of a handwriting/CFSL expert opinion, without corroborative evidence or a proper investigation, could be sustained in law.

Whether failure to provide relevant documents and an effective opportunity to explain the allegations before initiating disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the same relief granted by the Coordinate Bench in the batch of cases involving the same examination and similar allegations.

Expert opinion, particularly handwriting-expert evidence, is opinion evidence and is inherently weak; it must be treated with caution and ordinarily cannot, without substantial corroboration, constitute the sole basis for a finding of guilt or adverse action.

The Tribunal relied on the principles referred to in Ram Vijay Singh v. Union of India, Rajesh Kumar, Tikkaram v. Doulat Ram, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091, and Ramchandra v. State, AIR 1957 SC 361.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of natural justice and fair disciplinary procedure, including the requirement that an employee be supplied with relevant material and afforded a meaningful opportunity to defend himself before stigmatic disciplinary action is pursued.

It also followed the binding effect of the Ahmedabad Bench’s decision in O.A. No. 127/2022, which had been upheld by the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. Anil Kumar, R/Special Civil Application No. 18023/2023, decided on 5 August 2024, with the challenge thereafter having attained finality following dismissal of the relevant proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the present case involved the same legal and factual controversy considered by the Coordinate Bench: disciplinary action arising from alleged examination irregularities and reliance on expert comparison of signatures.

The earlier decisions held that a handwriting or CFSL opinion, standing alone, could not justify a stigmatic charge memorandum, particularly where there was no independent investigation, corroborative evidence, specific complaint, or inquiry into the alleged impersonation.

The earlier decisions also found procedural infirmities where relevant documents, including attendance records and other material sought for the defence, were not supplied and the affected candidates were not given a meaningful opportunity to explain their position before the disciplinary machinery was set in motion.

Since the applicant’s case was materially similar and the Coordinate Bench’s reasoning had been upheld by the Gujarat High Court and had attained finality, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for adopting a different view.

Consequently, the impugned charge memorandum and all subsequent proceedings taken pursuant to it were to be set aside, with the applicant entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

The matter was disposed of without any order as to costs.