Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1617
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Sanjeeva Kumar, Administrative Member
Amit Kumar Saini – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.135/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Handwriting expert opinion - Weak type of evidence, to corroborate main evidence only - Not substantial piece of evidence - Variation in signatures possible due to passage of time and speed of writing - Identity verified at all examination stages without contemporaneous suspicion - Disciplinary action solely on FSL report after years unsustainable. (Paras 15-17 from referenced order)
Facts of the case:
Applicant selected and appointed as Postal Assistant after direct recruitment examination, underwent training - Later, vigilance check revealed signature mismatch between OMR and test sheets - FSL report confirmed difference - Suspended, departmental enquiry held, dismissed from service - Appeal dismissed - OA filed challenging orders.
Findings of Court:
Impugned suspension order, enquiry report, dismissal order, and appellate order quashed - Applicant directed to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits within eight weeks.
Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings based solely on FSL signature mismatch report sustainable - Whether principles of natural justice complied with - Whether FSL opinion alone proves impersonation/malpractice.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary action cannot rest solely on handwriting expert opinion without supporting evidence, as it is weak and corroborative only - Prior appointment and identity verification negate later vague impersonation charge - Identical matters decided similarly by coordinate benches.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and reliefs sought (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. selection process and signature mismatch discovery (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. parties concede identical prior judgments (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. reproduction of prior identical rulings (Para 11) |
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
The instant O.A. was initially filed and pending consideration before the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, which on transfer came to this Bench of the Tribunal.
2. Pleadings in the O.A. are stated to be complete. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the O.A. is taken up for consideration and disposal.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record. In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
“i) Setting aside the impugned suspension order dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure A-9) vide which the applicant was suspended during the pendency of enquiry without passing the speaking order, setting aside the impugned enquiry report dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure A-15) in which the applicant was held guilty without proper appreciating the evidences available with the enquiry officer, setting aside the impugned dismissal order dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure A-17) and to set aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure A-19) vide which the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed/rejected.
ii) Directions be issued to reinstate the applicant in service alongwith all consequential benefits.
iii) AND/OR for grant of any other relief to which the applicant is found to entitled to under the Rules and law.
iv) Respondents may be directed to produce the complete record of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
v) Any other relief to which the applicants are found to entitle to under the Rules and law.
vi) Cost of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicants.”
4. It is undisputed that the respondents issued a notification dated 11.08.2012, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant under the direct recruitment examination for the year 2011–12. The examination consisted of two parts namely aptitude test - paper 1 and computer skill test - paper 2, conducted through outsourced agency situated in Uttar Pradesh. The applicant applied for the post of Postal Assistant in response to the said advertisement/notification issued by the Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant and PA in SBCO. The applicant was issued role number, OMR sheet, etc. and the applicant’s name was in the list of provisionally selected candidates and he was allotted Rohtak Division. The applicant was asked to attend the office of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtak Division on 15.11.2013 for pre-appointment formality along with certificates for document verification and on the basis of verification report of the documents/attestation form furnished by the applicant, he was appointed as Postal Assistant in Rohtak HO vide memo dated 03.03.2014.
5. After declaration of the result, the selected candidates had undergone departmental induction training in PTC Saharanpur in different sessions from 06.01.2014 to 01.12.2014. During these training sessions, Director, Postal Training Centre, Saharanpur, reported that some of the trainees have not secured minimum benchmark prescribed for passing the training, some trainees were detained for two weeks additional training as per the departmental rules, but many of these candidates failed to respond to additional training and could not obtain the desirable benchmark needed for successful completion of induction training. In this background, the Director, Postal Training, Saharanpur, observed that there may be some foul play in the selection process and it may be possible somehow that some candidates might have managed to bypass the competitive process. Ac
