Charge memoranda in disciplinary proceedings based solely on handwriting expert opinion without corroborative evidence or prior inquiry are unsustainable, being stigmatic and procedurally flawed.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

1. Since a common question of facts and law is involved in the present Original Applications, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the OAs were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of brevity, the facts are primarily being extracted from OA No. 1418/2022.

2. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge memorandum and for grant of consequential benefits.

3. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing their reply. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

4. It is not in dispute that the applicant had applied for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant pursuant to the Direct Recruitment Examination, 2011–12, was declared successful and joined service in the year 2014.

5. Subsequently, certain discrepancies in signatures were alleged by the respondents and specimen signatures of the applicants were obtained and sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). Based solely on the CFSL report indicating mismatch of signatures, the impugned charge memoranda came to be issued.

6. Counsel for the applicant submits that A similar case, Navneet vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 4260/2024) has been decided by this Tribunal and he rlies on the same. For the sake of clarity aforesaid decision reads as under:-

“Undisputed facts are that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the applicants in the captioned O.As vide respective impugned charge memo(s). All the applicants are similarly placed and identical issue has been raised by them in their respective O.As. In this view of the matter, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the captioned O.As were clubbed and were heard in part. Today, all the captioned O.As are listed as part-heard for further hearing. Accordingly, the captioned O.A.s have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order. For convenience in writing of this common order and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being taken from O.A. No. 4260/2024 and the same is being treated as the lead case.

2. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) quash and set aside impugned order:-

1)Memo no. B-24/Vig./Rectt./Exam/AM/2019 dated 26.02.2019 issued by Sr. Superintendent Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi to the applicant

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

3. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing reply/counter reply.

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

5. Undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant against direct recruitment examination 2011-12. The applicant participated in the said examination and on the basis of the results published, he was found successful and joined as Sorting Assistant under the respondents on 11.03.2014. In March, 2016, certain information came to the notice of the respondents pertaining to impersonation 

during the aforesaid examination. In the light of the order/judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP NO. 10513/2016 titled Manu Tomar Vs. Union Of India