Charge memoranda alleging impersonation solely on uncorroborated handwriting expert opinion quashed; weak expert evidence requires substantive corroboration, prior opportunity; fresh proceedings post-reinstatement impermissible without proven prior malpractice.

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. All the above Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.060/105/2021 (Sarita Vs. D/o Posts) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.

2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking setting aside the impugned memorandum dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure A-8) passed by the disciplinary authority under Rule 14 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 whereby, the process of Departmental enquiry has been initiated against the applicant as the same is arbitrary, illegal and also in contravention of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure A-5) passed in Civil Appeal No. 10513 of 2016.

3. The facts as taken out from OA No. 060/105/2021 are that an advertisement was issued vide Notification dated 25.02.2014 inviting applications for the posts of Postal Assistant, Sorting Assistant, Postal Assistant in Saving Banks Control Organization and Circle/Regional Offices under the Department of Posts. For Haryana Circle, 181 vacancies were notified. The applicant, being eligible under the Recruitment Rules, applied pursuant to the said notification. Copy of Notification dated 25.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure A-1.

4. That the recruitment was governed by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Circle and Regional Offices, Postal Assistants Group „C‟ Post Recruitment Rules, 2014. As per decision dated 05.04.2011, examinations were to be conducted centrally with objective-type questions through an outsourced agency. The written examination was conducted on 27.04.2014 and the typing/computer test on

13.07.2014.

5. That a provisional selection list was issued on 21.10.2014, wherein the applicant was provisionally selected subject to verification of documents (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, appointment letter dated 16.01.2015 was issued placing the applicant on two years‟ probation (Annexure A-3). The applicant joined and performed her duties satisfactorily.

6. That a complaint dated 08/09.04.2015 alleging irregularities in the examination led to cancellation of the recruitment process vide letter dated 11.12.2015. Consequently, services of the applicant were terminated on 23.12.2015 under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (Annexure A-4). The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the cancellation; however, the High Court upheld it, leading to appeal before the Supreme Court.

7. That the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.07.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2017 directed reinstatement of candidates not found guilty of malpractice with consequential benefits (Annexure A-5). The applicant was issued show cause notice dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure A- 6), replied on 22.11.2017 (Annexure A-7), and was reinstated vide order dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-7A), the allegation being held unproved.

8. That thereafter, memorandum of charges dated

28.05.2019 was issued alleging mismatch of signatures (Annexure A-8) based on CFSL report dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure A-9). The applicant challenged the memorandum before the High Court in CWP No. 18063 of 2020; interim order dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure A-10) was passed and the petition was dispose