Expert opinion alone is insufficient to initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct.

The applicant, Amarjeet Kumar, applied for the post of postal assistant in response to an advertisement for the "Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant Direct Recruitment Examination 2011-12" and joined the services of the respondents on February 27, 2014.

In 2016, a committee was constituted by the respondents to review the examination process based on directions from the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 10513/2016 titled Monu Tomar vs Union of India and others.

Discrepancies were found in the applicant's application form and OMR sheet, leading to samples of signatures and handwriting being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) Shimla for verification.

The CFSL report indicated differences in the applicant's handwriting/signature across various examination documents.

Consequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The applicant sought to set aside the impugned order dated November 16, 2023, initiating the departmental inquiry, and two orders dated February 14, 2024, appointing an Enquiry Officer (EO) and Presenting Officer (PO).

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, based solely on a CFSL handwriting expert's report, without further investigation or consideration of other evidence, are sustainable in law?

2. Whether the findings and principles established in O.A. No. 4260/2024 titled Navneet Vs. Union of India and Ors., which relied on O.A. No. 127/2022 of the Ahmedabad Bench (upheld by the Gujarat High Court and dismissed by the Apex Court SLP), are applicable to the present case?

The court applied the legal principle that expert opinion, particularly from a handwriting expert, is considered weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction or adverse action without substantial corroboration.

This principle was derived from judgments such as Ram Vijay Singh & Ors. vs Union of India (Hon'ble Allahabad High Court), Magan Bihari Lal vs State of Punjab [AIR 1977 SC 1091], and Ramchandra vs State [AIR 1957 SC 361].

It also referenced the principle of natural justice, requiring adequate opportunity for defense, including access to relevant documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal noted that the issue in the present case was identical to that decided in O.A. No. 4260/2024, titled Navneet (Supra), and O.A. No. 730/2025, titled Kamlesh Kumar Kamal (Supra).

These cases relied on the common order/judgment dated April 5, 2023, of the Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 127/2022, which held that expert opinion on handwriting, being of a "very weak nature," cannot solely form the basis for charge sheets without conducting an inquiry or having other corroborating evidence.

The Ahmedabad Bench's decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court's dismissal of the SLP, making it binding.

The Tribunal in Navneet (Supra) specifically found that initiating disciplinary proceedings solely on the basis of a handwriting expert's report, without considering specific complaints, proper investigation, or providing necessary defense documents (like CCTV footage or attendance sheets), violated principles of justice.

The respondents' counsel conceded that the factual matrix was identical to Navneet (Supra).

The Tribunal distinguished other orders cited by the respondents as being prior to the binding Ahmedabad judgment or based on different facts.

Therefore, the present O.A. is allowed.

The impugned charge memo(s) and subsequent order(s) and proceedings pursuant to such charge memo(s) are set aside.

The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with relevant rules and instructions.

There shall be no order as to costs.