A disciplinary finding cannot rest solely on an unproved forensic report.

The petitioner was selected through the IBPS CWE/PO/MT-III recruitment process, appointed by Punjab National Bank, and joined service on 16 February 2015.

Following a complaint alleging that he had used an impersonator in the 20 October 2013 examination, the Bank relied principally on a CFSL handwriting report stating that the questioned signatures were not written by the person who provided the standard signatures.

The fingerprint bureau found the questioned impressions unfit for comparison.

In the disciplinary inquiry, the Bank produced documents but called no witnesses, including the CFSL expert or an examination official.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner on 31 March 2018.

The petitioner’s appeal, filed in 2024, was rejected as time-barred.

He challenged both orders in the writ petition.

1. Whether the dismissal could be sustained where the principal evidence—the CFSL handwriting report—was marked as an exhibit but its author or another competent witness was not examined.

2. Whether alleged impersonation in a pre-employment examination could constitute misconduct under Regulations 3(1) and 24 of the PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977, in the circumstances of the case.

Departmental inquiries are not governed by the strict rules of the Evidence Act, but findings must rest on evidence brought on record in a manner consistent with natural justice; suspicion and unproved documents cannot, by themselves, establish misconduct.

In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 INSC 555, the Supreme Court stated that a document does not prove itself and that its contents ordinarily must be proved by a competent witness.

The Court also referred to Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma, (1973) 4 SCC 46, for the caution required in relying on handwriting-expert opinion.

Regulations 3(1) and 24 of the PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977, were invoked as the disciplinary provisions.

Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1984) 1 SCC 1, and Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 242, were considered in relation to whether conduct predating employment may be treated as misconduct under applicable service rules.

The Court found that the Bank’s case depended principally on the CFSL report, yet no witness was called to prove the report or explain the expert’s opinion, and the petitioner had no opportunity to question its author.

No IBPS official or invigilator was examined to establish the examination circumstances or connect the petitioner to the alleged impersonation.

The fingerprint report provided no corroboration because the impressions were unfit for comparison.

The Court therefore held that the finding of guilt lacked a properly proved evidentiary foundation; the Bank’s reliance on Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee was distinguishable because that case included testimony from other witnesses.

Although the Court considered the relevance of the pre-employment nature of the allegation, it did not hold that such conduct was categorically outside Regulations 3(1) and 24; it concluded that the charge could not stand because the principal evidence had not been proved.

The dismissal order dated 31 March 2018 and appellate order dated 7 May 2024 were quashed and set aside.

The Court declined to permit a fresh inquiry, noting that the Bank had a full opportunity to prove its case in the original proceedings and had not done so.

It directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner to his former or an equivalent post, with continuity of service and consequential benefits, including back wages from 31 March 2018 until reinstatement, to be released within three months in accordance with the Bank’s rules and regulations.