The reliance on expert handwriting opinion in disciplinary actions requires substantial corroboration, failing which charge sheets can be quashed due to procedural irregularities.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

2. It is undisputed that the issue involved in all the captioned OAs is identical. It is also undisputed that all the applicants are similarly placed and in this background the OAs were clubbed and listed today for consideration and disposal. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, OA No. 1317/2023 is taken as the lead case.

3. It is undisputed that the applicant had applied for the post of Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant against the advertisement for Direct Recruitment Examination 2011-12 conducted by the Delhi Postal Circle. The applicant applied and participated in the said examination and was declared qualified on the basis of result of the said examination. Offer of appointment was issued to him for the post of Sorting Assistant (SA) and he joined the services of the respondents on 20.02.2014.

4. In March 2016, when certain information came to the notice of the respondents pertaining to impersonation during the aforesaid examination, at the direction of the competent authority, a team was constituted for ascertaining the genuineness of such selected candidates, including the applicant who was selected and appointed on the basis of result of the aforesaid examination.

5. After examination of the application form of the applicant with the corresponding OMR sheet, some discrepancies in the signature of the applicant were noticed by the respondents. Therefore, the applicant was called by the team constituted at circle level and the applicant’s signatures and handwriting were obtained. The sample of the signatures and handwritings of the applicant were compared with those of his on OMR answer sheets, OMR application and evaluating sheet etc. On close scrutiny of the handwritings, it was prima facie found by the respondents to be different. In this view of the matter, the respondents obtained expert opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Shimla for verification of the genuineness of the candidature of the applicant.

6. The CFSL, vide report dated 27.03.2017, opined as under:

“The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S462, did not write the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q4.”

7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the CFSL in its report also stated that opinion is based upon the cumulative considerations of the various differences both in general and individual writings characteristics.

8. In the aforesaid background, the respondents have initiated the departmental proceedings against the applicant vide impugned memorandum dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure A-1).

9. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry pursuant to the impugned Memorandum, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA seeking the following relief:

a) Quash and set aside impugned order no:- 1. Memo no. B- 24/VIG./RECTT./EXAM/AM/2019 dated 18.02.2019 issued by Office of Senior Superintendent, Airmail Sorting Division New Delhi issued to the applicant.

b) Any other relief the Hon’ble tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. This Tribunal had passed an interim order dated 30.05.2023 in the form of restraining the respondents from going ahead in the departmental enquiry pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure A-1) against the applicant. Such interim order is admittedly continuing.

11. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the identical issue has already been de