Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Jagmohan on 17 December, 2024
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~93 and 107
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17328/2024 and CAV 614/2024, CM APPLs. 73776-
77/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC
with Ms. Pinky Pawar, Advocate
versus
JAGMOHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Ashish Pandey, Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr.
Anurag Pandey, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 17365/2024 and CAV 616/2024, CM APPLs. 73921-
22/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC
with Ms. Pinky Pawar, Advocate for UOI
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms.
Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates
versus
SHRI SUKHVINDER .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Ashish Pandey and Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 17.12.2024 Signature Not Verified WP(C) 17328/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 14 KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2024 20:07:41 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Invitations, for applications from candidates seeking to be
directly recruited as Postal Assistant in the office of the petitioner,
were invited by a public notice dated 21 February 2014. The
respondents in these writ petitions applied, and were selected. They
joined their respective posts and started working. Thereafter, the
examination was itself cancelled by the petitioners with immediate
effect. This decision was challenged, and the challenge travelled to
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by the following order dated
13 July 2017, disposed of the Civil Appeals1:
“Permission to file SLP granted. Delay condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners 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 Committee
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., Uttarakhand, 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 3 consequential benefits and 50% back wages
with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case1 Monu Tomar v UOI, MANU/SCOR/26052/2017
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 2 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
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 violations 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.”
2. In compliance with the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court,
Jagmohan was appointed on 30 July 2018 and Sukhvinder was
appointed on 28 June 2018. The appointments were provisional,
subject to the right of the petitioners to take action against them in the
event of there having been found to have indulged in malpractice
during the examination. In the meanwhile, the signatures of the
candidates who had undertaken the examination was sent to the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory2 for verification and ascertain
whether any impersonation had taken place. The examination report
was submitted by the CFSL, in the case of Jagmohan, on 31 May 2019
and, in the case of Sukhvinder, on 28 June 2019. The reports were
adverse to the respondents. The CFSL opined that the signatures on
the Typing Test Evaluation Sheet and Data Entry Evaluation Sheet, of
the respondents, did not tally with the specimen signatures. Following
this, chargesheets were issued to Jagmohan on 6 February 2020 and
2 “CFSL” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 3 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
Sukhvinder on 19 March 2020, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19653, proposing
to initiate disciplinary action against them. Inquiry Officer 4 and
Presenting Officer were appointed, to conduct the disciplinary inquiry.
The IO opined, in his Inquiry Report, that the charge against the
respondents stood proved beyond doubt. The Disciplinary Authority 5,
vide order dated 6 September 2022 in the case of Jagmohan and 8
February 2022 in the case of Sukhvinder, agreed with the findings of
the IO and imposed, on them, the penalty of removal from service
with immediate effect, which would not be a disqualification for
future employment. Appeals, preferred by the respondents against the
decision of the DA, were dismissed by the appellate authority on 14
February 2023 in the case of Jagmohan and 29 September 2023 in the
case of Sukhvinder. OA 20/2023 and 275/2024 were filed by
Jagmohan and Sukhvinder, before the Central Administrative
Tribunal6 , assailing the decisions of the DA and the appellate
authority. The Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 20 May 2024,
allowed both the Original Applications.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India, as the respondent before
the Tribunal, has petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. We have heard Ms. Arunima Dwivedi and Mr. Ankur Chhibber,
who appear for the petitioners and respondents respectively, at length.
3 “the CCS (CCA) Rules”
4 “IO” hereinafter
5 “DA” hereinafter
6 “the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 4 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
5. The Tribunal has, by the judgment under challenge, quashed the
order of dismissal of the respondents from service, as well as the
orders passed in the appeals thereagainst, and has directed their
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners sought to contend that, as
the inquiry had been conducted pursuant to the liberty granted by the
Supreme Court, the respondents were bound by its outcome. It was
submitted that principles of natural justice have been complied with,
and no legitimate grievance could be raised on that count.
7. As against this, the respondents contended that a finding of
impersonation, and consequential cancellation of examination, could
not be returned merely on the basis of a handwriting comparison
conducted by the CFSL. It was pointed out that there was no other
evidence available with the petitioners.
8. It also merits mention that documents, sought by the
respondents to defend the allegations against them, and of which the
IO directed supply, holding that they were relevant, were never
supplied to them.
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:
“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
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 5 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
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 the same was
addressed by letter dated 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
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 6 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
custody of the 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 vide B2/Rule-
14/01/Sukhvinder/2020 dated 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.”
11. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has followed the
earlier decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in Sandeep
Kohar v UOI7 which, in turn, relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad
Bench of the Tribunal, rendered on 4 May 2023 in Ashish Kumar M.
Patel v UOI8. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, in deciding to
quash the cancellation of the candidates’ candidature, held that, on the
sole ground of mismatch between the signatures of the candidate in
the documents relating to the examination and her, or his, specimen
signatures, cancellation of the candidate’s candidature was not
justified. Following the said decision, the Tribunal has, in the
impugned judgement, quashed the termination/dismissal of services of
Jagmohan and Sukhvinder and has directed their reinstatement.
12. Aggrieved that the said decision, the Union of India, through
the Department of Posts, has petitioned this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
13. Learned Counsel broadly reiterated their respective contentions
before the Tribunal. It has also been pointed out to us, however, that
7 MANU/CA/0483/2024
8 OA 127/2022
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 7 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
the judgment of the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal in Ashish
Kumar M. Patel stands upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Gujarat in UOI v Anil Kumar9.
14. The factual and legal position which obtained in the case of the
respondents before the High Court of Gujarat in Anil Kumar are
identical to those which obtained in the case of the present
respondents, inasmuch as the respondents in Anil 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, after initially having
been appointed, were 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 judgement 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.
15. The respondents would, therefore, in any case be entitled to
9 MANU/GJ/1221/2024
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 8 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
relief, to maintain parity with their compatriot-respondents before the
High Court of Gujarat in Anil Kumar.
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 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 judgements of the
Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v CBI10 and Padum Kumar v State
of UP11:
From S.P.S. Rathore:
47. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
10 (2017) 5 SCC 817
11 (2020) 3 SCC 35
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 9 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
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 finding about the writing being of a certain person or not.
It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be
examined in a case to prove or disprove the disputed writing. It is
opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of
substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to
see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence.
49. In Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma12 this
Court held as under :
“26. … It is no doubt true that the prosecution led evidence
of handwriting expert to show the similarity of handwriting
between (PW 1/A) and other admitted writings of the
deceased, but in this respect, we are of the opinion that in
view of the main essential features of the case, not much
value can be attached to the expert evidence. The evidence
of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert,
is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have
been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be
wary to give too much weight to the evidence of
handwriting expert. In Kishore Chandra Singh
Deo v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat13 this Court observed
that conclusions based upon mere comparison of
handwriting must at best be indecisive and yield to the12 (1973) 4 SCC 46
13 (1954) 1 SCC 326
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 10 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
positive evidence in the case.”
50. It is thus clear that uncorroborated evidence of a
handwriting expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the
same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for
acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much
weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever,
take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such
evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear,
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
From Padum Kumar
“14. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that without
independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting
experts cannot be relied upon to base the conviction. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
upon S. Gopal Reddy v State of A.P.14, wherein the Supreme Court held as
under:
“28. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 is not definite and cannot be
said to be of a clinching nature to connect the appellant with the
disputed letters. The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of
evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering
“conclusive” proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same
without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan
Bihari Lal v State of Punjab15, while dealing with the evidence of
a handwriting expert, this Court opined:
‘7. … we think it would be extremely hazardous to
condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion
evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that
expert opinion must always be received with great caution
and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of
a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential
authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction
solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost
become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram
Chandra v State of U.P.16, that it is unsafe to treat expert
handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it
may be relied upon when supported by other items of14 (1996) 4 SCC 596
15 (1977) 2 SCC 210
16 AIR 1957 SC 381
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 11 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out
in Ishwari Prasad Misra v Mohd. Isa17 that expert
evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it
is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated
in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v Subodh Kumar Banerjee18
where it was pointed out by this Court that an expert’s
evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can
rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and
before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to
consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had
again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert
opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v State of
M.P.19 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it
would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence
of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such
evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is
corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.'”
15. Of course, it is not safe to base the conviction solely on the
evidence of the handwriting expert. As held by the Supreme Court
in Magan Bihari Lal v State of Punjab that:
“7. … expert opinion must always be received with great caution
… it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without
substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted
upon and it has almost become a rule of law.”
16. It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the
handwriting expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such
evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial
evidence. In Murari Lal v State of M.P.20, the Supreme Court held as
under:
“4. … True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority
that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the
opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the
opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of
expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses
— the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an
expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human
judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some
defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of
conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science,
17 AIR 1963 SC 1728
18 AIR 1964 SC 529
19 AIR 1967 SC 1326
20 (1980) 1 SCC 704
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 12 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the
science is less developed and imperfect. The science of
identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the
risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the
other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not
nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far
cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an
invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in
every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest
of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an
initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His
opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by
him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish the
Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy
of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own
independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the
facts proved in evidence” [Vide Lord President Cooper
in Davis v Edinburgh Magistrate21, quoted by Professor Cross in
his evidence].
*****
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the
Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a
point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person
“specially skilled” “in questions as to identity of handwriting” is
expressly made a relevant fact. … So, corroboration may not
invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an
handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on
the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a
varying degree. There can be no hard-and-fast rule, but nothing
will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by
unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated.
The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a
handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the
reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and
decide finally to accept or reject it.”
18. Keeping in view the above legal position, we find no error in
the impugned judgement of the Tribunal, as the petitioners have, in
their arsenal, the handwriting opinion of the CFSL and no other
evidence, and the respondents were, moreover, not provided with the
documents which were found, even by the IO, to be necessary for their
21 1953 SC 34
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 13 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41
defence.
19. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned
judgment, which is upheld in its entirety.
20. The writ petitions are dismissed, without any orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
DECEMBER 17, 2024/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
WP(C) 17328/2024
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 14 of 14
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2024
20:07:41