Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5372
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, ACJ, Rajveer Singh Verma, J
Ashish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Posts – Respondent
O.A./223/2024
Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, Shri Hare Ram Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel
Expert opinions on handwriting are admissible but not binding; courts assess their weight based on expertise and corroborating evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Bhartiya Sakhsya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 39 - Expert opinion on handwriting - The court held that expert opinions are relevant and admissible as evidence, but their weight is determined by the court based on expertise and corroborating evidence. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Administrative Law - The court emphasized that judicial scrutiny in administrative matters differs from criminal cases, and the cancellation of selection based on expert opinion must be substantiated. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were selected for the post of Sorting Assistant but faced cancellation of their selection based on a forensic report regarding signature discrepancies. They challenged the cancellation order, alleging arbitrary action and seeking reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the cancellation order based on the CFSL's expert opinion, which indicated significant discrepancies in the applicants' signatures.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the cancellation of selection based on expert opinion and the procedural fairness of the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while expert opinions are admissible, they are not binding, and the court retains discretion in assessing their weight. The cancellation was upheld due to substantial evidence from the CFSL report.
Result: Both OAs are dismissed.
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :-
The above two OAs have been taken up together for hearing since the prayer and issue involved in these OAs are similar. They are accordingly decided to be disposed of by the following common order.
2. Both the OAs have been filed seeking the following relief:-
“(i) Speaking Order dated 08.09.2022, issued by the Superintendent, RMS ‘NB’ Division Samastipur and which sent by the Superintendent, RMS ‘NB’ Division Barauni to the applicant on dated 23.02.2024 as contained in Annexure-A/1, may be quashed and set aside;
(ii) The Selection and Appointment of applicant against the post of Sorting Assistant RMS ‘NB’ Division Samastipur may be declared correct issued in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment & Advertisement after observing due process of selection.
(iii) The respondent authorities may be directed to permit the applicant to join the post of Sorting Assistant in RMS ‘NB’ Division, Samastipur with all past and present consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs as the applicant is entitled and your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants participated in the selection against the posts of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in pursuance of Employment Notice issued by the Department of Posts on 11.08.2012. After appearing in all the stages of the examination they were selected against the post of Sorting Assistant and a provisional appointment letter dated 20/23.12.2013 (Annexure A/6) was issued. The applicants then submitted all the original documents/certificates as per instructions. The applicants were then subjected to health and age examination in view of a letter dated 15.01.2014 of the Superintendent, RMS ‘NB’ Division, Samastipur addressed to the Civil Surgeon, Gaya. On successful completion of 8 weeks theoretical training from 30.06.2014 to 23.08.2014 the applicants were relieved vide letter dated 23.08.2014 with direction to report to their Division Head. The applicants have alleged that suddenly they were communicated the cancellation of their provisional candidature and ultimate cancellation of their selection vide letter dated 12.04.2016 (Annexure-A/11) on the basis of letter dated 25.07.2015 issued by the Director, CFSL with regard to variance in their signatures. The applicants have alleged that cancellation of selection of the applicants on the ground of forensic report is misconceived and not tenable in the eye of law on the grounds as mentioned in 4.13 of the OA. Aggrieved by the above order dated 12.04.2016 the applicants approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 403 of 2016 and OA No. 401/2016 respectively and vide order dated 13.09.2019 this Tribunal partly allowed the OAs by quashing the impugned order dated 12.04.2016 with direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicants within a period of sixty days and if the respondents so desire it can proceed further against the applicants after supplying copy of opinion of CFSL to the applicants. The respondents’ writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court was also dismissed for non-compliance of its previous order (Annexure A/3). The applicants have further alleged that they were not permitted to join for more than one year after the order of Hon’ble High Court and despite setting aside the cancellation of selection order by this Tribunal and that other candidates from the same selection process have been allowed to join resulting in recurring financial loss to the applicants. It is submitted that the Superintendent RMS NB Division, Samstiupur sent the copy of the opinion/report given by the CFSL, Kolkata dated 08.06.2015 to the applicants (Annexure A/16). The applicants have further submitted that the contempt petition filed before this Tribunal is still pending.
4. The applicants are aggrieved by the speaking order dated 08.09.2022 enclosed with the letter dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure A/1) whereby the request of the applicant
