Impersonation in appointment processes justifies the cancellation of an appointment without notice if evidence conclusively points to fraud, as affirmed by forensic analysis and existing legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 12.08.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the selection of the petitioner on the post of Assistant in State Bank of India has been cancelled and the offer of appointment has been revoked/cancelled.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts of the case as set forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner had appeared in a examination for the clerical cadre in State Bank of India. The written examination took place on 27.05.2012. The petitioner was declared successful and thereafter he appeared for an interview on 12.09.2012. On being successful, an offer of appointment dated 27.11.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, was issued whereby the petitioner was informed that he had been selected for appointment in the Bank in the clerical cadre as "Assistant" subject to completion of required formalities. The petitioner was required to appear on 11.02.2013 for completion of joining formalities.

4. Condition No.12 of the said offer clearly provided that in the event of any of information/declaration/certificate or document being found false, forged or fabricated at a later date, the offer of appointment shall be deemed to have been cancelled.

5. The petitioner appeared for the scrutiny of documents on the said date and had thereafter been sent for one day training. Thereafter, vide the order impugned dated 12.08.2013, the offer of appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.

6. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the respondents have stated that during scrutiny of the documents/credentials of the petitioner, serious discrepancies were detected in the signature and thumb impression as appear in the call letter as against the signature and thumb impression of petitioner at the time of scrutiny. On account of such discrepancy, relevant evidences were referred to the Forensic Expert and it transpired that the thumb impression and signature obtained at the time of written examination were different from the thumb impression and signature obtained at the time of scrutiny and consequently the offer of appointment of the petitioner had been cancelled.

7. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed.

8. Specific averment has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paras 15 & 16 of the writ petition that at the time of written examination neither any signature nor thumb impression was made by the petitioner on any paper nor the invigilator was instructed to take signature or thumb impression at any paper consequently there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to have signed and affixed his thumb impression in the attendance sheet which has prevailed on the respondents while passing the order impugned to indicate that the petitioner has tried to secure appointment by impersonation.

9. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been sent for training and offer of appointment is of 27.11.2012 as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have cancelled the offer of appointment after a period of more than 9 months.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents in their counter affidavit have indicated that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination and