1. Bank employee dismissed based solely on handwriting expert report for alleged impersonation and unfair means in recruitment exam. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 802
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
Sachin Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 38777 of 2015
Decided On : 15-04-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare
For the Respondent: Ashutosh Mishra, A.S.G.I., Jayant Banerji, Satish Chaturvedi, Shyam Singh Sengar
For the Petitioner: Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare
For the Respondent: Ashutosh Mishra, A.S.G.I., Jayant Banerji, Satish Chaturvedi, Shyam Singh Sengar
Dismissal based solely on an uncorroborated handwriting expert's report is unsustainable if the expert is not cross-examined and other available identification evidence is ignored, as this violates the principles of natural justice and the legal standard of preponderance of probability.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Impersonation in recruitment examination - Reliance on handwriting expert's report - A handwriting expert's report is opinion-based evidence and the science of handwriting recognition is not a perfected proposition; thus, such evidence must be approached with caution and corroborated by other relevant evidence (Paras 11 and 12).
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to cross-examination - The right to cross-examine witnesses is an essential part of the doctrine of fairness and principles of natural justice; departmental proceedings must be fair, just, and reasonable (Para 22). Accepting the authenticity and genuineness of a document (i.e., that it is not a forgery) does not amount to admitting that the information, allegations, or conclusions contained within the document are true or accurate; therefore, it does not waive the right to cross-examine the author of the report (Para 21).
(C) Standard of Proof - Preponderance of probability - In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability, meaning the decision must be based on a careful weighing of all available facts and circumstances to determine if it is more likely than not that the misconduct occurred (Paras 17 and 19).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed to the post of Clerk in a Bank after successfully completing the recruitment process, including a written examination and interview. After their confirmation in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on a complaint alleging fraudulent appointment via impersonation during the written examination. The Bank dismissed the petitioners from service based solely on a handwriting expert's report comparing signatures. The petitioners' requests to cross-examine the handwriting expert and to examine the invigilator—who had verified their photographs, thumb impressions, and signatures during the exam—were denied by the Bank. The appellate authority upheld the dismissal, stating that since the authenticity of the expert report was not denied, cross-examination was unnecessary.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the dismissal order was passed mechanically based on an opinion report without any independent findings by the disciplinary authority. The Bank failed to consider other identification factors (thumb impression and photograph) verified by the invigilator and failed to produce the invigilator as a witness, despite being the best person to substantiate the charges. The denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert violated the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether a dismissal order based exclusively on an uncorroborated handwriting expert's report, where the expert was not cross-examined and other available identification evidence (thumb impression, photograph, and invigilator's verification) was ignored, is sustainable under the standard of preponderance of probability.
Ratio Decidendi: An uncorroborated handwriting expert's report is a weak piece of evidence, especially when other modes of identification are available. The right to cross-examine a witness is fundamental to natural justice and cannot be bypassed simply because the genuineness of the document's origin is admitted. In disciplinary proceedings, the employer is expected to bring the best available evidence to prove misconduct; relying solely on an opinion without considering corroborative evidence or allowing cross-examination fails the test of preponderance of probability.
Result: The impugned order dated 17.1.2014 and order dated 11.3.2015 are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued handwriting expert report alone insufficient without cross-examination or invigilator testimony. Bank relied on expert report as sufficient evidence. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Handwriting expert report is opinion evidence; not providing cross-examination opportunity and ignoring other identification modes violated natural justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Mere handwriting expert report, not subjected to cross-examination and unsupported by other identification evidence, cannot sustain dismissal in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 28 )
5. Impugned dismissal and appellate orders set aside; liberty granted to bank to hold fresh disciplinary proceedings afresh. (Para 29 , 30 )
6. Is a handwriting expert report alone sufficient evidence to prove misconduct in disciplinary proceedings?
No, a handwriting expert report is opinion evidence and may require corroboration; it cannot be the sole basis for dismissal especially when not cross-examined. (Para 11 , 12 , 19 , 28 )
7. Does accepting the authenticity of a document waive the right to cross-examine its maker?
No, accepting the authenticity and genuineness of a document does not amount to admitting the truth of its contents, nor does it waive the right to cross-examine the maker. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. Is cross-examination of a handwriting expert essential before relying on his report in departmental proceedings?
Yes, not providing an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert violates principles of natural justice, especially when his report is the only evidence relied upon. (Para 22 , 28 )
9. Should a disciplinary authority consider all identification factors present in an exam process before concluding impersonation?
Yes, when the call letter contains photograph, thumb impression and signature verified by an invigilator, all such factors must be weighed; ignoring them is unfair. (Para 16 , 19 , 23 , 25 )
10. Is an employer obligated to examine the best available witness, such as an invigilator, in disciplinary proceedings?
Yes, the employer is expected to bring the best available evidence to prove the charge; failing to examine the invigilator who verified identity evidence weakens the case. (Para 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-Bank
2. The writ petition is preferred by petitioners challenging the order dated 17.1.2014 passed by respondent no.4-Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Meerut and order dated 11.3.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy General Manager (B&O), Administrative Office, Noida.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
(i) An advertisement dated 8.8.2009 was issued by respondent Bank for recruitment to the post of Clerk in State Bank of India. In pursuance to said advertisement, petitioner no.1-Sachin Kumar and petitioner no.2- Sanjeev Kumar applied under general category, while petitioner no.3- Vipin Kumar applied under Schedule Caste category. In pursuance to above-mentioned advertisement, petitioners appeared in written examination. Call letters of petitioners are annexed as Annexure Nos.2A, 2B and 2C to the writ petition. The result of written examination was declared on 3.3.2010 and petitioners were declared successful in aforesaid written examination. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 appeared for interview on 1.5.2010, while petitioner no.3 appeared for interview on 27.4.2010 and petitioner no.2 also appeared for interview. Final result of above-mentioned recruitment process was declared on 29.9.2010 wherein petitioners were selected for appointment on the above-mentioned post.
(ii) In pursuance to above-mentioned selection of petitioners, petitioner no.1 submitted his joining on 18.12.2010 as Assistant in Baraut main branch, while petitioner no.2 submitted his joining at Agrawal Mandi, Tatri, District Baghpat and petitioner no.3 submitted his joining at Kotana Branch, District Baghpat. Initially, petitioners were appointed on probation for six months, however, after completion of aforesaid period, petitioners were confirmed in service.
(iii) On 9.10.2013, a notice was issued to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to the effect that a complaint has been received with regard to fraudulent appointment in the bank. The petitioner nos.1 and 3 submitted reply denying the allegations of complaint. Petitioner nos.1 and 3 were thereafter suspended by means of order dated 16.1.2013, while petitioners no.2 was suspended by means of order dated 15.5.2012. The suspension of petitioners were based on allegation of fraudulent appointment in bank service by adopting unfair means.
(iv) Petitioner nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved by above-mentioned suspension order had preferred Writ-A No.19868 of 2013 (Sachin Kumar and 2 others Vs. S.B.I. Thru Chairman and 2 others). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by means of order dated 12.4.2013, whereby, this Court issued directions to the respondent-Bank that the disciplinary proceedings against petitioners be concluded preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order.
(v) Petitioners were issued charge-sheet dated 11.7.2013 in disciplinary proceedings. Charge against petitioners were with respect to obtaining appointment in Bank service by adopting unfair means/impersonation while attempting an examination which was held on 8.11.2009. Petitioners thereafter preferred reply to the above- mentioned charge-sheet denying allegations. Petitioners also sought for details of the complainant and copy of the complaint in respect of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioners. Petitioners also sought for cross-examination of complainant as well as the invigilator before whom petitioners appeared in written examination. Thereafter, respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into allegations against petitioners.
(vi) Petitioners participated in disciplinary/enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to petitioners, which was replied by petitioners. Respondents by impugned order dated 17.1.2014 dismissed the petitioners from service. Petitioners being aggrieved by ab
