Consistent Expert Opinions Confirming Impersonation in Handwritten Documents Justify Lifetime Debarment Under Service Law principles.

The petitioner applied for the post of Technician Gr. III/Fitter (C) under CEN No. 01/2014

After passing the written examination on July 13, 2014, he attended document verification on December 29, 2015

The Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) suspected impersonation due to discrepancies in handwriting between his application form/verification sheets and his OMR answer sheet/attendance sheet

The Government Examiner for Questioned Document (GEQD) confirmed the handwriting did not match

Consequently, the respondent cancelled his candidature and debarred him for life on February 8, 2017

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) later directed a second verification by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), which also concluded that the authors of the documents were different

The petitioner challenged the CAT’s dismissal of his application, arguing that the experts failed to examine his thumb impressions

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in accepting the experts' reports (GEQD and CFSL) regarding handwriting mismatch without directing a comparison of thumb impressions

2. Whether the findings of impersonation and the resulting lifetime debarment were legally sustainable

The Court primarily applied Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which is pari materia to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding the relevancy of expert opinions on handwriting and identity

Section 65 of the BSA (equivalent to Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act), which mandates that if a document is alleged to be signed or written by a person, that person’s handwriting must be proved

The court emphasized that while administrative tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence, they may apply principles analogous to the BSA to reach logical conclusions

The Court reasoned that the respondent authorities acted on a reasonable doubt following the document verification process

It noted that two independent expert bodies—GEQD and CFSL—concurrently found that the person who signed the application form was not the same person who appeared for the written examination

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that thumb impressions should have been verified, explaining that under Section 65 of the BSA, proving the disputed handwriting is a valid and sufficient method of establishing the identity of the author

The Court found no "contrary material" to disbelieve the expert opinions and held that the Tribunal’s reliance on these reports was a plausible and logical application of legal principles to the facts of the case

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's order dated December 9, 2025, finding the decision to be a "plausible one" that required no interference; the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed