Facts
The applicant, Vikas Kumar, was provisionally appointed as a Postal Assistant in Bardoli Division on December 15, 2014, following successful participation in the recruitment process for Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the year 2013-14.
Source reference: p.3Subsequently, the entire examination for Gujarat Circle was cancelled via an order dated December 21, 2015.
Source reference: p.3This led to several OAs, and ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 10513/2016 titled Monu Tomar Vs. UOI & Ors., directed reinstatement of candidates not suspected of malpractices, with liberty for the department to take action if malpractices were later found.
Source reference: p.4Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, the respondents obtained 100 sample signatures from the applicant on blank paper sheets and sent them along with original OMR Sheets, Registration Slips, Typing Test Evaluation-sheets, and Data Entry Evaluation-sheets to the CFSL for verification.
Source reference: p.5Based solely on the CFSL report/opinion dated January 17, 2020, which indicated mismatched signatures, Respondent No. 4 issued a Charge Memorandum dated July 1, 2020, alleging malpractice to secure appointment.
Source reference: p.1, p.2, p.5The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the charge memo.
Source reference: p.2Similar charge memoranda against similarly placed officials, based solely on CFSL handwriting expert reports, had been quashed by this Tribunal, upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, and further dismissed at the SLP stage by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Source reference: p.6, p.7, p.8The respondents argued that the OA was premature as the inquiry was ongoing and provided an opportunity for defense.
Source reference: p.8Issues
1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of the impugned charge memorandum are tenable in law when based solely on the CFSL handwriting expert's opinion, without any corroborative or supporting evidence?
Source reference: p.2, p.102. Whether the ongoing disciplinary proceedings render the Original Application premature, despite established legal precedents from this Tribunal, the High Court, and the Supreme Court on identical matters?
Source reference: p.8, p.11, p.12Law Applied
Expert handwriting opinion is a weak form of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction or action without substantial corroboration.
Source reference: p.10It is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as a sufficient basis for conviction, and it should only be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence.
Source reference: p.10Conviction cannot be based solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
Source reference: p.10Expert opinion, not being conclusive, cannot solely be relied upon to cancel provisional selection.
Source reference: p.10Charge memoranda based solely on CFSL handwriting expert opinions, and which were upheld by higher courts, had been quashed by this Tribunal in identical cases such as Ashishkumar M. Patel Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 127/2022) and Sudha Vs. UOI & Others (OA No. 291/2023).
Source reference: p.10, p.11Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the impugned charge memorandum was founded exclusively on the CFSL handwriting expert's report, which indicated variations in the applicant's signatures compared to specimen signatures.
Source reference: p.9The respondents admitted that there was no independent corroborative material or evidence beyond this report.
Source reference: p.9Citing Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in Ram Chandra Vs. State and Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana, the Tribunal noted that expert handwriting opinion is a "very weak and infirm" type of evidence that cannot form the sole basis for a conviction or action without substantial corroboration.
Source reference: p.10The Tribunal also referred to the Allahabad High Court's ruling in Ram Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. UOI, which held that expert opinion alone cannot be used to cancel a provisional selection.
Source reference: p.10Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that identical charge memoranda in similar cases had been quashed by this Tribunal (e.g., Ashishkumar M. Patel Vs. UOI & Ors. and Sudha Vs. UOI & Others), upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, and further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs.
Source reference: p.7, p.8, p.11The respondents' argument that the OA was premature was also rejected, as the Hon'ble High Court had previously dismissed similar contentions in SCA No. 1802/23 and connected matters.
Source reference: p.11, p.12Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the legal precedent established in similar cases, which has attained finality, squarely applied to the present matter.
Source reference: p.11, p.12Holding
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, concluded that the impugned Charge Memorandum dated July 1, 2020, suffered from legal infirmities and was untenable in the eye of law, as it was based solely on the CFSL handwriting expert's opinion without any corroborative evidence.
Accordingly, the Charge Memorandum dated July 1, 2020, was quashed and set aside.
Source reference: p.12Consequently, all service benefits, if any, shall follow in accordance with extant service rules in favor of the applicant.
Source reference: p.12There was no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.12Original Court PDF
Vikas Kumar v. Union of India and Others [O.A. No. 164/2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in