it2025_00902 — Mere opinion of handwriting expert without any corroborative evidence cannot form basis of a charge-sheet

Mere opinion of handwriting expert without any corroborative evidence cannot form basis of a charge-sheet — The Respondent has issued a charge-sheet against the Applicant based on CFSL opinion without corroborative evidence, which is being challenged by the Applicant in the departmental disciplinary procee... — Facts: Selected as Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant in the Postal Department, the Applicant after completing pre-appointment formalities, had undergone the requisite medical examination. After his reporting before SRM, "W" Division, Vadodara, he participated in the Induction Training at PTC, Vadodara from 6-4-2015 to 30-5-2015. Thereafter, the Applicant started serving as Sorting Assistant in the office of SRM, "W" Division at Surat on 21-12-2015. On account of various complaints of indulging in malpractices by the candidates, the Respondent No. 2 vide Letter, dated 21-12-2015, ordered cancellation of the result of the examination for Direct Recruitment of Postal Assistant for the year 2013-2014. On the very same day, the services of the Applicant as also some other similarly situated persons were terminated under Proviso to sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Applicant filed O.A. No. 122 of 2016 on 18-1-2016 challenging the order of cancellation of the examination. Others also had filed O.A. Nos. 478 of 2015 and 487 of 2015. This Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 478 of 2015. The O.A. No. 122 of 2016 filed by the Applicant was also allowed in terms of the Order, dated 18-3-2016 passed in O.A. No. 478 of 2015. Being aggrieved by aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, the Respondent had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by filing various writ petitions. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the Applicant as also some others had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with Special Leave Petitions. On 13-7-2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India having disposed of the SLPs, observed as under:- "Permission to file SLP granted. Delay condoned. We have heard Learned counsel for the Appellants/Petitioner and we have also heard Learned Additional Solicitor-General who has been instructed by officers of the concerned Department. We have also perused the report of the Vigilance Committee set up by the Department. We find from a perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committees that the entire examination was not necessarily vitiated but some persons who are suspected of having used malpractices in the examination of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in five circles, viz., Uttarkhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat have actually been identified. The Respondents will proceed against them in accordance with law but since they are quite a few in number, a formal show- cause notice is dispensed with. However, they may be personally called and explained the allegations against them and given some reasonable time of about a week or ten days to give their reply to the allegations and then a final decision may be taken. Those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractices and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all consequential benefits and 50% of back-wages with liberty to the Respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that they have indulged in some malpractices. We make it clear that the Respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than one centre. Such violation will also be treated as malpractice. We further make it clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. However, we also make it clear that those candidates who have not completed the course but were in the process of completing the course until the impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course / training, provided they are not suspected of any malpractice. The appeals and special leave petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications are also disposed of." Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 called the Applicant to appear in person and had taken as many as 100 specimen signatures from the Applicant. Later on he was informed vide Communication, dated 13-4-2018 that his case had been forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad for examination and as per adverse report/opinion of CFSL, Hyderabad, he is not eligible for reinstatement in service. The Applicant, once again approached this Tribunal with an application being O.A. No. 223 of 2019 to challenge the communication to the effect that as per the report / opinion of the CFSL, Hyderabad, the Applicant herein is not eligible for reinstatement in service. The above OA was disposed of on 21-10-2021 by passing the order with operative portion of the judgment as follows:- "13. In view of the above discussion and in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside. The case is remitted back to the Respondent No. 2 and 3 with a direction to consider the candidature of the Applicant for reinstatement in light of what is stated hereinabove as also. If no other adverse report is found against the Applicant by following the principles of natural justice. It is expected that the Respondent concerned will carry out the directed exercise within a period of 60 days positively from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, OA stands partly allowed. No order as to cost." Pursuant to the above direction, the Applicant was reinstated vide Order, dated 1-12-2021 on the post of Sorting Assistant, subject to the condition that the Department of Posts would be at liberty to take action against him in case, subsequently it is found in the investigation that he had indulged in any malpractice. After a couple of months thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 had issued a charge Memorandum, dated 17-3-2022, and decided to hold an inquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 raising allegation that the Applicant had indulged in improper ways and means to secure appointment in Government department. The Respondent decided to proceed further nominating an IO and PO to hold the inquiry against the Applicant. The Applicant has challenged the charge-sheet mainly on the ground that the charge levelled against the Applicant is solely based on the CFSL opinion and nothing more. It is not open to the Respondent, in the absence of any corroborative material. Challenging the action of the Respondent No. 3, the Applicant prays to quash and set aside the charge Memorandum and further proceedings in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In reply, it is averred that the Respondent had taken action on the basis of liberty, provided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further averred that the competent authority had considered and rejected the Representation submitted by the Applicant as per the power vested in him under CCS Rules. Justifying the action taken by the Respondents in issuing charge-sheet, the Respondents have prayed for rejection of this OA. The Applicant in his rejoinder reiterated the facts as averred in the OA. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the action of the Respondents issuing the charge Memorandum solely based on the CFSL report is in violation of the order passed by this Bench in O.A. No. 223 of 2019 filed by the Applicant. The Respondent ought not to have passed such an order without affording an opportunity to the Applicant to explain his position. This Bench also observed that the CFSL had not opined any adverse report against the Applicant and did not find in order the action of the Respondents based upon the handwriting expert opinion without any corroboration. Further, after reinstatement of the Applicant on the post, no further investigation was carried out. The charge Memorandum has been issued based upon the opinion of the handwriting expert, which is not a substantive piece of evidence. In the absence of any additional evidence against the Applicant obtained during the investigation or inquiry, the opinion of the handwriting expert alone cannot be used for initiation of disciplinary action by issuing charge Memorandum to the Applicant. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondents had been granted liberty to take action against the Applicant if, anything found against the Applicant. The Respondent is within its power in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. It is contended that the Applicant would be able to put his defence in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it would not be proper to interfere in the action taken by the Respondent.