2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4049

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, J, Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, ACJ
Vikash Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 116/2023

Disciplinary action cannot rest solely on a handwriting expert's opinion; corroboration and due process are required, including production of defence materials. The charge sheet based only on the CFSL handwriting opinion is void for violation of natural justice and is to be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Relevant laws and sections cited: - Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; sub-rule-1 of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (as referenced in the proceedings and charge-sheet framing). The charge memorandum was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (Paras 2.17, 3.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 12, 13)

(B) Key legal principles or points of law discussed: - "The respondents have committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicants solely on the basis of handwriting expert and without conducting any inquiry." (Para 12) - "The signatures obtained in 2018 on hundred blank papers were sent together, with the signatures which were taken at the time when the applicant appeared in the examination held in the year 2014 by the respondents for forensic document examination and handwriting expert opinion of CFSL had been sought." (Para 6.1) - "The opinion of handwriting expert was not to be treated as conclusive and should be viewed with corroborating materials; expert opinion is an opinion and cannot normally be the sole basis for conviction or denial of appointment where other evidence exists." (Para 49-50; see also cited judicial principles within the discussion in Para 12 and 13) - "In view of the above legal position, the respondents committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet solely on the basis of handwriting expert..." (Para 12-13) - The proceedings must afford reasonable opportunity and supply relevant defence materials; non-supply of demanded documents violates natural justice. (Para 6.2, 6.3, 11.16-11.19; see also the Gujarat High Court discussion cited within the judgment)

(C) Important facts of the case (quote from judgment): - "Vide notification dated 21.02.2014, Department Post i.e., respondent no.1 herein invited applications from eligible persons for filling up a large number of vacancies for the post of Postal Assistant (PA), Sorting Assistant (SA) under direct recruitment examination for the year 2013-14 in respect to various Postal Department in 22 Circles in the country including the vacancies to be filled up in Gujarat Circle." (Para 2.1) - "The examination was conducted by M/s. CMC Limited on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The said examination was comprised of two parts. The paper-1 is Aptitude Test whereas the paper-2 is Computer/Typing Test." (Para 2.4-2.5) - "The result of examination of Direct Recruitment of PA/SA for the year 2013-14 was cancelled by the office of Director General vide letter dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure A/3) and accordingly informed the CPMGs... about cancellation of Direct Recruitment examination." (Para 2.8-2.9) - "Being aggrieved by cancellation of the aforesaid examination, a large number of OAs were filed before this Tribunal... The Hon’ble Supreme Court… ordered that those persons who are not tainted may join the course; and that those who are tainted would not get the benefit of the order." (Paras 2.10-2.13) - "Thereafter, in compliance of aforesaid judgments… the respondents had issued appointment letter/order dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure A/5) vide which the applicant was appointed provisionally to the post of Sorting Assistant…" (Paras 2.13-2.14) - "CFSL had forwarded a report dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure A/6) wherein CFSL opined that… the person who wrote the enclosed signatures stamped and marked S151 to S160 also wrote the enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q62 but this person did not write the enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q63 and Q64." (Paras 2.16-2.17) - "The CFSL report dated 31.10.2019 was relied upon to issue the charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2020 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the applicant…" (Para 2.17) - The applicant’s defense and contentions, including the assertion that videography/CCTV existed during the examination and that demanded defence documents were not supplied. (Paras 3.1-3.6)

(D) Main issues addressed by the court (quote how the court frames these issues): - "The applicant challenged the charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure A/1) and proceeded on the ground that there was no evidence in support of the allegation and merely the handwriting expert opinion of CFSL indicated variation in signatures; thus the inquiry was not conducted and natural justice was not observed." (Para 6) - "Whether the charge memorandum is sustainable when based solely on the handwriting expert opinion of CFSL, without corroborative evidence and without providing demanded defence documents?" (Implied framing across Paras 6-6.3, 11-12) (E) Findings of Court (ratio decidendi) (quote key parts): - "It emerges from the record that the signatures of the applicant obtained in the year 2018 on hundred blank papers were sent together, with the signatures which were taken at the time when the applicant appeared in the examination held in the year 2014 by the respondents for forensic document examination and handwriting expert opinion of CFSL had been sought." (Para 6.1) - "The respondents herein had categorically admitted that except the said report of the CFSL, no other supporting or corroborative evidence/documents are available with the DA to support the allegations levelled against the applicant." (Para 6.2) - "In view of the aforesaid legal position, we find that the respondents have committed grave error in issuing the charge sheet against the applicant solely on the basis of handwriting expert and without conducting any inquiry. Further, the allegations made against the applicants are stigmatic in nature…" (Paras 6.3, 12-13) - "The opinion of handwriting expert is not conclusive… there can be no hard-and-fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of a handwriting expert… if corroborated by other evidence." (Paras 49-50, cited within the discussion leading to para 12) - "The impugned charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside and subsequent proceedings, if any, pursuant to the said charge-sheet are also quashed and set aside since the charge Memorandum itself has been set aside." (Para 13) (F) The final decision or result of the case (quote exact wording): - "The impugned charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside and subsequent proceedings, if any, pursuant to the said charge-sheet are also quashed and set aside since the charge Memorandum itself has been set aside." - "No order as to costs." (End of decision, Para 13-14) (G) Parties involved in the case (list them, without naming entities): - Applicant (individual) - Respondents (public authority/departmental entities comprising the recruitment and posts administration) - Note: Specific party names are not listed here in order to adhere to the requirement of avoiding named entities in the headnote. (H) Dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints (if present, quote key points): - There is no dissenting opinion noted in the judgment; the order is a single Bench decision allowing the OA and quashing the charge memo and ongoing proceedings. (No separate quoted dissenting observations appear in the text provided.)