UNION OF INDIA ORS v. SUMIT

Judgment

1. The respondent participated in a selection for the post of Postal Assistant, consequent to a notification, on 11 August 2012, issued by the Chief Postmaster General, Haryana, Department of Posts.

2. An aptitude test was held on 7 July 2013 and a data entry and typing test was held on 1 September 2013, in both of which the respondent participated. The result of the selection was declared on Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 18 December 2013.

3. A list of provisionally selected candidates allotted to the Hissar Division against the available vacancies was released by the Department of Posts on 18 December 2013. The name of the respondent figured therein. The selection was, however, subject to verification of documents.

4. Consequent on completion of formalities, the respondent was appointed as Postal Assistant, Mandi Dabwali, LSG SO vide memo dated 11 February 2014.

5. It appears that, thereafter, consequent to certain directions issued by the Postal Directorate, a committee, under the Chairmanship of the Postmaster General, was constituted to examine the record of the selected candidates. As the Committee felt that the signatures of the respondent, on the answer sheet of the examination undertaken by him differed from the signatures on the OMR sheet, the matter was referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory1, Shimla, for an opinion.

6. The CFSL, in its report dated 25 January 2017, opined that “the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked A1 to A4 (Charge report dated 24.02.2014 (Annexure R-4), Specimen Signatures on Letter addressed to Civil Surgeon Hissar dated

28.01.2014 (Annexure R-5) & Attestation form (Annexure R-6)) did Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 not write the enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2, Q3 and Q4 (OMR Answer Sheet (Annexure R-1), Typing test Answer sheet (Annexure R-2), Data Entry Answer sheet) (Annexure R-3).”

7. Predicated on the aforesaid CFSL report, the Department of Posts issued a chargesheet to the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19652, alleging that the respondent had been impersonated in the examination, as his signatures in OMR sheet and in the written tests did not match, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty.

8. It is not in dispute that the chargesheet was accompanied by a list of 17 documents on which the Articles of Charge against the respondent were proposed to be sustained. The said list may be reproduced as under: “List of documents by which the articles of charges against Sh. Sumit PA Jhajjar MDG proposed to be sustained.

1. Notification for the post of PA/SA Direct Recruitment exam for the Year 2011-12 issued vide Chief Postmaster General Haryana Circle Ambala vide no. R & E/34-3/2012/Dated 11.08.2012.

2. OMR Application form No. 6522297 for the post of Postal Assistant in r/o Sh. Sumit.

3. OMR Answer Sheet No. 3437194 for Aptitude Test in r/o Sh. Sumit under Roll No. 1711619606.

4. Data Entry test Answer Sheet No. 42959 Dated 01.09.2012 in r/o Sh. Sumit under Roll No. 1711619606. 1 “CFSL” hereinafter 2 “CCS(CCA) Rules” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34

5. Typing test Answer Sheet no. 42928 dated 01.09.2013 in r/o Sh. Sumit under Roll No. 1711619606.

6. Directorate Letter no. A-34012/5/2011-DE(Part-II) dated 23/24.02.2016.

7. Minutes dated 16.06.2016 of the committee constituted by Chief Postmaster General Haryana Circle Ambala for preventive vigilance check.

8. Report No. CX-13/2017 of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla issued vide letter No. CX-13/2017/664 dated 31.01.2017.

9. Preliminary enquiry report dated 28.03.2017 of Sh. B.S. Panchal ASP Bahadurgarh.

10. Attestation Form of Sh. Sumit.

11. Letter addressed to Civil Surgeon Hissar for Health Certificate and Health Certificate issued by Civil Surgeon Hissar in r/o Sh. Sumit.

12. Charge Report dated 24.02.2014 in r/o Sh. Sumit.

13. Circle Office Ambala letter no. APS/Con-28/2013 dated

01.11.2013 & 18.12.2013.

14. SPOs Hissar letter no. B-2/4 Rectt/2011 & 2012 dated

01.11.2013.

15. SPOs Hissar letter no. B-2/4 Rectt/2011 & 2012 dated

11.02.2014.

16. Statement of Sh. Sumit dated 28.08.2017 containing 2 pages obtained by Sh. B.S. Panchal, the then ASP Bahadurgarh.

17. Letter dated 01.11.2013.”

9. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is not in dispute that, from the aforesaid list, documents at serial nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 15 were not provided to the respondent, despite the respondent having sought the said documents.

10. Mr. Pathak, learned SPC for the petitioners, submits that the said documents were not provided as, in the perception of the IO, they were not relevant. He also submits that the inquiry report which ultimately came to be issued by the IO on 17 August 2019, was passed essentially on the CFSL report dated 25 January 2017. Inasmuch as the said report had been provided to the said respondent, Mr. Pathak submits that the decision not to provide the respondent the aforesaid documents at serial nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the list of documents annexed with the chargesheet, was not fatal to the proceedings. He also points out, in this regard, that Rule 14 (3)(ii) (b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules requires the DA to draw only a list of the documents by which the articles of charge was proposed to be sustained and Rule 14(4)(a) requires the DA to provide the government servant/charged officer the said list of documents and witnesses along with the articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct. Inasmuch as these documents have been provided to the respondent, and the petitioner has also provided the documents which according to the IO were relevant to the case and on which the IO ultimately relied while passing the inquiry report, he submits that there was no violation of Rule 14 or breach of the principles of natural justice.

11. Besides, Annexure-4 to the chargesheet enlisted the witnesses, by whom the articles of charge were proposed to be proved, and reads Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 thus: “List of witnesses by whom the article of Charges framed against Sh Sumit P.A Jhajjar MDG are proposed to be sustained.

1. Dr. Ravindra Sharma, M.sc. Ph.D (Asstt. Director.& Scientist C) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla

2. Sh. Ranjit Singh the then APMG (Staff) o/o CPMG Haryana Circle Ambala.

3. Sh. S.R Sharma the then SSPOs Hissar 4. Sh. B.S Panchal the then ASP Bahadurgarh

5. Sh. S K Jain O.A. O/o SPOs Hissar” Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Rohtak Division Rohtak-124001”

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not produce any of the witnesses enumerated in Annexure-4 to the Articles of Charge and, therefore, the respondent could not cross examine any of the said witnesses. This, according to us, is a serious breach of procedure, especially as the first witness named in the list of witnesses, i.e. Dr. Ravindra Sharma, was the Assistant Director & Scientist ‘C’, CFSL, who was obviously cited as a witness to prove the CFSL report. By not producing him in the witness box, the CFSL report went unproved.

13. We may also rely, in this context, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank3, in which the Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act may not be strictly applicable in departmental 3 (2009) 2 SCC 570 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 proceedings, nonetheless, if the IO or the DA intends to rely on certain documents against the charged officer, those documents have to be proved in the matter known to law. If the documents are not proved, they cannot be relied upon in the inquiry proceedings.

14. The relevant paragraphs from Roop Singh Negi may be reproduced thus: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”

15. It was in such circumstances that the IO came to pass the inquiry report, relying on the CFSL report and holding the charges against the respondent to stand proved.

16. Following the aforesaid inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31 October 2019, removed the respondent from service.

17. An appeal, preferred by the respondent, against the decision of the DA was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17 July

2020. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34

18. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal4 by way of OA 1133/2022.

19. By the judgment dated 29 May 2024, the Tribunal has allowed the OA in the following terms: “10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to take a view which could be at divergence. Therefore, the present OA is allowed and all the impugned orders terminating/dismissing the services of the applicants from the post of Postal Assistant, Postal illegal, arbitrary, Department, Government of India, being discriminatory, against the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence as well as against the provisions of the Service Rules are hereby quashed. The order passed on the appeal thereto is also quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. All consequential benefits flowing out of this judgement be released to the applicant within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

20. The Tribunal has, in allowing the OA, relied on its earlier decision in Jagmohan v UOI5, rendered by the Tribunal on 20 May

21. The decision of the Tribunal in Jagmohan was carried by the department to this Court, and stands affirmed by us6. We may reproduce, from the said decision, the relevant paragraphs, thus: “9. Joginder had sought 11 documents from the petitioners, to defend the allegations against him. The request was considered by the IO on 8 October 2020, and it was ordered thus: 4 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 5 OA No 20/2023 6 Refer UOI v Jagmohan, 2024 SCC Online Del 9099 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 “2. The Charged official demanded eleven documents in the list of additional documents to defend his case. Eight (Sr No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11) out of a found to be relevant. To decide the relevancy of remaining documents, the charged official was passed to explain the relevancy of documents mentioned that sr no. 8, 9 and 10 in the list. The charged official explained that exam was conducted PTC Vadodara during the induction training on the same pattern, so documents mentioned at Sr. No. 8 & 9. He explained that the documents sr. no. 10 is required to ascertain the authenticity of the document. During the, it was explained by the Inquiry Officer that the performance of the exam conducted at PTC Vadodara during the induction training is not relevant with this case. Therefore, the documents mentioned at sr. no. 8 & 9 are not relevant. The authenticity of documents sr. no. 10 will be decided during the regular of the case, so that the demanded document is not required. Action will be initiated for making available the relevant documents.” Joginder was not, however, provided with any of the documents at S. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 11, despite the IO returning a finding that the documents were relevant for Joginder's defence and directing action be initiated for making them available. During the course of arguments before the IO, this point was specifically raised by Joginder, and stands so recorded in the Inquiry Report. The IO has, however, paid no heed to the said submission, while holding the charges against Joginder to be proved.

10. With respect to the request for documents by Sukhvinder, for his defence, the inquiry Report dated 21 December 2021, of the IO, records thus: “Accordingly CO has supplied list dated 07.09.2020 of documents and witnesses to be produced during inquiry for his defence. The list was carefully scrutinised by the IO and relevant documents and witnesses were allowed. The letter to supply letter dated the same was addressed by 21.09.2020. The custody of the said documents were reported to be ‘SP Gondal/CPMG Ahmedabad/DOP’ by the CO. The letter was addressed to PO but a copy of the same was also addressed to the authority having custody of the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 same as mentioned by CO in his demand letter i.e. SP Gondal. Custodian of the documents i.e. SP Gondal has also intimated vide letter dated 01.12.2020 that these (defence) documents were called from CO Ahmedabad and will be supplied after receipt of the same. Custodian of the documents i.e. SP Gondal has been sent non-availability letter 22.01.2021 as per CO Ahmedabad letter No. R & E/1- 1/DR/2013 & 2014-III dated 05.10.2020 additional documents demanded by CO was not available of the said information which was sent to Charge on 28.01.2021 by IO.” B2/Rule-14/01/Sukhvinder/2020 ***** respondents respondents, inasmuch as initially having been appointed, were

14. The factual and legal position which obtained in the case of the respondents before the High Court of Gujarat in Anil Kumar7 are identical to those which obtained in the case of the in Anil present Kumar were also among those who participated in the examination conducted for the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 21 February 2014 and who, terminated by cancellation of their appointment, based on the report of the CFSL. In their case, too, fresh appointment orders were issued, an inquiry conducted, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in its order dated 13 July 2017 in Civil Appeal 10513/2016 and connected cases. In their case, too, documents, which were sought by the respondents for their defence were permitted by the IO but not provided. Among other reasons, the High Court of Gujarat, in its judgment in Anil Kumar, has affirmed the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal to set aside the termination of the respondents (before the High Court) from service and directed reinstatement, on the ground that there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice in not providing the documents sought by the respondents, especially as the only evidence against them was the CFSL report. *****

16. The default, on the petitioner's part, in supplying the documents sought by the respondents Jagmohan and Sukhvinder, and allowed by the IO has relevant for the defence is, in our opinion, fatal to the inquiry proceedings. It signals complete breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is elementary 7 UOI v Anil Kumar, MANU/GJ/1221/2024 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1002/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.03.2025 18:06:34 that, in any quasi-judicial proceedings, the person charged is entitled to be provided material relevant for his defence. The finding of the IO that the documents were relevant ipso facto render their non-supply to the respondents fatal to the inquiry. In fact, no reasonable purpose would be served even in permitting the petitioners to recommence the inquiry against the respondents, if the documents are essential for the defence are not forthcoming. In this context, we find it difficult to believe that the documents are not available, as the inquiry was conducted in reasonable proximity to the order passed by the Supreme Court.

17. It is, further, well settled in evidence that handwriting comparison constitutes evidence of an extremely weak character, and cannot, in any event, be treated as conclusive. We may reproduce, in this context, the following passages from the in S.P.S. judgments Court Rathore v. CBI8 and Padum Kumar v. State of UP9: Supreme From S.P.S. Rathore:

47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused that the signatures of Ms. Ruchika on the memorandum were forged though she signed the same in front of Shri. Anand Prakash, Shri S.C. Girhotra, Ms. Aradhana and Mrs. Madhu Prakash and they have admitted the same, we are of the opinion that expert evidence as to handwriting is only opinion evidence and it can never be conclusive. Acting on the evidence of any expert, it is usually to see if that evidence is corroborated either by clear, direct or circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. A court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a court to record a finding about a person's writing in a certain document merely on the basis of expert comparison, but a court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held by this Court in a catena of cases that the sole evidence of a handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite