Departmental Charges for Impersonation Cannot Sustain Solely on Uncorroborated Handwriting Expert Opinion

The applicant was recruited as a Sorting Assistant in the Department of Posts via a 2011 direct recruitment process and joined on March 11, 2014

In June 2017—six years after the application—the respondents collected the applicant’s sample handwriting and signatures to compare them with examination documents (OMR sheets, typing tests, etc.) following allegations of impersonation in the 2011-12 exam

Based on a CFSL report dated October 17, 2023, which concluded the signatures did not match, the respondents initiated major penalty proceedings via a memorandum dated July 25, 2025, and appointed an Inquiry Officer

The applicant challenged these proceedings, asserting the issue was settled by prior judicial precedents

1. Whether the departmental proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a CFSL handwriting expert’s opinion, several years after recruitment, are sustainable in law?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with the judgment in Navneet v. Union of India Anr. (O.A. No. 4260/2024)?

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties

It relied on the principle that an expert opinion under the Indian Evidence Act is a "weak piece of evidence" and cannot be the sole basis for a stigmatic charge like impersonation without substantial corroboration, as established in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1977 SC 1091] and Ramchandra v. State [AIR 1957 SC 361], both cited via the Ahmedabad Bench precedent

The court further followed the binding precedent of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India v. Anil Kumar (Special Civil Application No. 18023/2023), which held that such proceedings based only on specimen signatures without considering other factors (CCTV, invigilator logs) are invalid

The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case are identical to Navneet v. Union of India and Ashish Kumar M. Patel v. UOI, where similar charges based on CFSL reports were quashed

The court reasoned that handwriting expert opinions are not conclusive and must be received with caution

It observed that the respondents failed to provide corroborative evidence, such as CCTV footage or invigilator reports, and initiated proceedings in a "casual manner" after a significant delay

The Tribunal distinguished the respondents' reliance on the Patna Bench's Lala Thakur case, noting that the Ahmedabad Bench decision (upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 16083/2025) carried greater precedential weight and specifically addressed identical circumstances of the 2011-12 Exam

It quashed the impugned memorandum dated July 25, 2025, and the subsequent orders appointing the Inquiry and Presenting Officers. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be accorded all consequential benefits, including monetary and seniority benefits, in accordance with the relevant rules. No order as to costs was made.