Disciplinary proceedings based solely on expert opinion without supporting evidence violate natural justice and cannot sustain dismissal.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Pleadings are stated to be complete.

2. By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 18.09.2018 and has prayed for the following relief(s):–

“(a) declare that the impugned Charge Sheet dt. 18.9.2018

(ANNEXURE A-1); Order of Penalty dt. 22.12.2020

(ANNEXURE A-6) & order-in-Appeal dt. 27.5.2021

(ANNEXURE A-9) are bad in law

(b) quash & set aside the impugned Charge Sheet dt. 18.9.2018

(ANNEXURE A-1); Order of Penalty dt. 22.12.2020

(ANNEXURE A-6) & Order-in-Appeal dt. 27.5.2021

(ANNEXURE A-9)

(c) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with effect from the date the applicant has been dismissed from service with back wages & all consequential benefits

(d) allow the cost of this application to the applicant

(e) pass any other Order or Relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it proper to grant in view of facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.”

3. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed their counter reply.

4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and, with their assistance, have perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

5. Undisputed facts are that the Department of Posts issued a notification dated 11.08.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up vacancies of Sorting Assistant under the Direct Recruitment Examination for the year 2011– 2012. In response to the said advertisement, the applicant applied and was declared successful for the post of Sorting Assistant.

6. During training, an enquiry was conducted by the respondents on the basis of a prima facie suspicion regarding leakage of question papers/answer sheets in violation of various provisions of the agreement/instructions of the Department by the outsourcing agency, M/s CMC, and possible involvement of outsiders with or without the complicity of M/s CMC.

7. The respondents examined the record relating to selected candidates of the PA Examination 2011–12 and noticed that the signatures of the applicant on the data entry and typing test evaluation sheets differed from the signatures on the OMR sheet of the aptitude test for Sorting Assistant.

8. In this view of the matter, the respondents obtained the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The CFSL submitted its report dated 24.02.2017, which reads as under:-

“the person who wrote the signatures in the red enclosed portions stamped and marked S1 to S167, A1 and A2 did not write the signatures in the red enclosed portions similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3"

9. In the facts and circumstances, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant, pursuant to which he was dismissed from service by the impugned order. Hence, the present OA.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an identical issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 1133/2024 titled Sumit vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 29.05.2024, wherein the entire enquiry was based solely on the CFSL report. This Tribunal had set aside the impugned order in that case. The said judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, and further, the SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed, thereby affirming the view taken by the Tribunal.

11. He further submits that the judgment in Sumit (Supra) has been subsequently followed by this Tribunal while allowing OA No. 1905/2025 (Shri Harish & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) vide order dated 30.10.2025.

12. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present OA