# Arpit Khanna v. Chief General Manager State Bank of India

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1054
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1887 of 2014
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arpit-khanna-v-chief-general-manager-state-bank-of-india-53705
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Anurag Srivastava, Durga Prasad Dwivedi,
Sharad Dwivedi

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether appointment can be cancelled on
the ground of misconduct (impersonation) after
lapse of a certain period of time?
(b) Whether such cancellation amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - From the expert's report,
it is apparent that impersonation has been
carried out at the time of selection which
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India & Anr.
1055
has resulted in the petitioner being
selected. (Para 37)

The first ground raised by the petitioner for
raising a challenge to the order impugned is
that at the time of the written examination
neither any signature nor thumb impression was
made by the petitioner on any paper. (Para 26)

The said ground is found to be patently
fallacious and misconceived and hence rejected.
The reason is that a copy of the attendance list
has been filed by the respondent as part of
Annexure CA-1 (Page 26 of the counter
affidavit) which indicates both the thumb
impression and the signature of the petitioner.
(Para 27)

The petitioner had applied for appointment in
clerical cadre for the post of Assistant under the
respondent-Bank. He had appeared in the
written
examination
and
was
declared
successful. He appeared for the interview and
was thereafter declared selected for the said
post. Subsequent thereto he was called for
scrutiny
of
his
documents,
which
were
scrutinized
by the respondents. Offer of
appointment dated 27.11.2012 had been issued
to the petitioner. However, vide the order
impugned dated 12.08.2013 his selection for the
post of Assistant has been cancelled and the
offer of appointment has been revoked. (Para
22)

The respondents have indicated that the
signatures and thumb impressions obtained at
the time of scrutiny and written examination are
different and thus the Bank concluded that the
petitioner had tried to procure appointment by
impersonation and thus in terms of the Clause
12 of the offer of appointment, his offer of
appointment has been cancelled. (Para 23)

In support of there being difference in the
signature
and
thumb
impression
of
the
petitioner as made in the call letter and the
attendance list at the time of the written
examination
as
well
as
scrutiny
of
the
documents, the matter had been referred by the
respondents for an expert opinion. The hand
writing expert has submitted his report dated
28/29.06.2013 which clearly indicates the
difference
in
the
signatures
and
thumb
impression of the petitioner in the call letter vis
a vis the attendance list and scrutiny of the
documents. Incidentally, no challenge has
been raised to the handwriting expert's
report
on
the
basis
of
which
the
respondent-Bank has passed the order
impugned and has held that there had
been impersonation on the part of the
petitioner. (Para 24, 29)

B.
The
other
ground
taken
by
the
petitioner is that the petitioner had been
sent
for
training
and
the
offer
of
appointment is dated 27.11.2012 as such
there cannot be any occasion for the
respondents to have cancelled the offer of
appointment after a period of more than 9
months. The said ground is also found to be
misconceived inasmuch as whenever the fraud
has been detected by the respondents and that
too after obtaining the expert's report dated
28/29.06.2013
that
the
impugned
order
cancelling the offer of appointment of the
petitioner had been passed on 12.08.2013 and
thus merely because 9 months lapsed
between the offer of appointment and
cancellation,
the
same
cannot
be
considered to be a valid ground and hence
rejected. (Para 28)

C. To sustain the allegation of violation of
principles of natural justice, one must
establish
that
prejudice
has
been
caused to him for non-observance of
principles of natural justice. Thus, even
if in a given case there has been some
deviation from the principles of nature
justice, the court is not bound to
interfere. (Para 32 to 35)

Nowhere in the en

## Text

_Characters 0–39,711 of 40,843. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39711 for what follows._

1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specifying the said date. It may also be said
that, that was the year in which the Left
Front came into power in that State, but
that does not detract from the validity of
the aforesaid reasons assigned by the State
in its counter-affidavit filed before the
Division Bench of the High Court. We are
not
in
agreement
with
the
opinion
expressed by the High Court that the
reasons assigned by the State Government
are neither relevant not acceptable

8. In this context, it may be
remembered that the power of the State to
specify a date with effect from which, the
Regulations framed, or amended, as the
case may be, shall come into force is
unquestioned. A date can be specified both
prospectively as well as retrospectively.
The
only
question
is
whether
the
prescription of the date in this case is
neither arbitrary now unreasonable, the
complaint of discrimination must fail.

9. Now coming to the argument of
Sri P.P. Rao that the Regulations bring
about
an
unreasonable
classification
between similarly placed employees in
concerned, we must say that we are not
impressed by it. It is not submitted that the
Corporation had no power to give
retrospective effect to the Regulations. It
was within the power of the Corporation to
enforce
the
Regulations
either
prospectively or with retrospective effect
from such date as they might specify. Of
course, as repeatedly held by this Court, in
such cases the State cannot, as the
expression goes, pick a date out of its hat.
It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable
manner, having regard to all the relevant
facts and circumstances. Once this is done,
question of discrimination does not arise.
Reference in this behalf may also be had to
the decision of this Court in Sushma
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan , a decision of
the
Division
Bench
comprising
E.S.
Venkataramiah and Sabyasachi Mukherji,
JJ. "

18. Thus, considering the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Om
Prakash Saxena (supra) the said argument
of learned counsel for the petitioners is also
rejected.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1054
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 1887 of 2014

Arpit Khanna ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief General Manager State Bank of India
Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Surya Narayan Mishra, Jyoti Sikkanee
Mehrotra, Kuldeep Kumar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Srivastava, Durga Prasad Dwivedi,
Sharad Dwivedi

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether appointment can be cancelled on
the ground of misconduct (impersonation) after
lapse of a certain period of time?
(b) Whether such cancellation amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - From the expert's report,
it is apparent that impersonation has been
carried out at the time of selection which
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India & Anr.
1055
has resulted in the petitioner being
selected. (Para 37)

The first ground raised by the petitioner for
raising a challenge to the order impugned is
that at the time of the written examination
neither any signature nor thumb impression was
made by the petitioner on any paper. (Para 26)

The said ground is found to be patently
fallacious and misconceived and hence rejected.
The reason is that a copy of the attendance list
has been filed by the respondent as part of
Annexure CA-1 (Page 26 of the counter
affidavit) which indicates both the thumb
impression and the signature of the petitioner.
(Para 27)

The petitioner had applied for appointment in
clerical cadre for the post of Assistant under the
respondent-Bank. He had appeared in the
written
examination
and
was
declared
successful. He appeared for the interview and
was thereafter declared selected for the said
post. Subsequent thereto he was called for
scrutiny
of
his
documents,
which
were
scrutinized
by the respondents. Offer of
appointment dated 27.11.2012 had been issued
to the petitioner. However, vide the order
impugned dated 12.08.2013 his selection for the
post of Assistant has been cancelled and the
offer of appointment has been revoked. (Para
22)

The respondents have indicated that the
signatures and thumb impressions obtained at
the time of scrutiny and written examination are
different and thus the Bank concluded that the
petitioner had tried to procure appointment by
impersonation and thus in terms of the Clause
12 of the offer of appointment, his offer of
appointment has been cancelled. (Para 23)

In support of there being difference in the
signature
and
thumb
impression
of
the
petitioner as made in the call letter and the
attendance list at the time of the written
examination
as
well
as
scrutiny
of
the
documents, the matter had been referred by the
respondents for an expert opinion. The hand
writing expert has submitted his report dated
28/29.06.2013 which clearly indicates the
difference
in
the
signatures
and
thumb
impression of the petitioner in the call letter vis
a vis the attendance list and scrutiny of the
documents. Incidentally, no challenge has
been raised to the handwriting expert's
report
on
the
basis
of
which
the
respondent-Bank has passed the order
impugned and has held that there had
been impersonation on the part of the
petitioner. (Para 24, 29)

B.
The
other
ground
taken
by
the
petitioner is that the petitioner had been
sent
for
training
and
the
offer
of
appointment is dated 27.11.2012 as such
there cannot be any occasion for the
respondents to have cancelled the offer of
appointment after a period of more than 9
months. The said ground is also found to be
misconceived inasmuch as whenever the fraud
has been detected by the respondents and that
too after obtaining the expert's report dated
28/29.06.2013
that
the
impugned
order
cancelling the offer of appointment of the
petitioner had been passed on 12.08.2013 and
thus merely because 9 months lapsed
between the offer of appointment and
cancellation,
the
same
cannot
be
considered to be a valid ground and hence
rejected. (Para 28)

C. To sustain the allegation of violation of
principles of natural justice, one must
establish
that
prejudice
has
been
caused to him for non-observance of
principles of natural justice. Thus, even
if in a given case there has been some
deviation from the principles of nature
justice, the court is not bound to
interfere. (Para 32 to 35)

Nowhere in the entire petition has the
petitioner indicated as to what prejudice has
been caused to him on account of violation
of the principle of natural justice and
consequently keeping in view the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in
case only one conclusion is possible
then the court may not issue its writ to
compel
the
observance
of
natural
justice, no interference is required. (Para
30, 36)
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. In Re Sashi Bhushan Kumar & Ors vs Union
of India & Ors., W.P.C.T. 178 of 2012 (Para 13)
2.
S.L.Kapoor
Vs.
Jagmohan
and
Ors.,
MANU/SC/0036/1980 (Para 30)
3. Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali
Khan, MANU/SC/0533/2000 (Para 31)
4. Syndicate Bank Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati,
(2006) 3 SCC 150 (Para 32)
5. Haryana Financial Corpn. Vs. Kailash Chandra
Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 (Para 33)
6. State of U.P. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3
SCC 775 (Para 34)
7. U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee Vs. B.
Sheetal Nandwani (Dr), 1992 Supp (1) SCC 680
(Para 38)
8. C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2025) 4 SCC 487 (Para 40)
9. Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1980) 1 SCC 704 (Para 41)

List of Keywords
Service,
selection,
appointment,
revoked,
cancelled.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Surya Narayan Mishra,Jyoti
Sikkanee Mehrotra,Kuldeep Kumar Awasthi
For Respondent: Anurag Srivastava,Durga
Prasad Dwivedi,Sharad Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Under challenge is the order dated
12.08.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-1
to the petition, whereby the selection of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant in State
Bank of India has been cancelled and the
offer
of
appointment
has
been
revoked/cancelled.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts
of the case as set forth by the petitioner are
that the petitioner had appeared in a
examination for the clerical cadre in State
Bank of India. The written examination
took place on 27.05.2012. The petitioner
was declared successful and thereafter he
appeared for an interview on 12.09.2012.
On
being
successful,
an
offer
of
appointment dated 27.11.2012, a copy of
which is Annexure-7 to the petition, was
issued whereby the petitioner was informed
that he had been selected for appointment
in the Bank in the clerical cadre as
"Assistant"
subject
to
completion
of
required formalities. The petitioner was
required to appear on 11.02.2013 for
completion of joining formalities.

4. Condition No.12 of the said offer
clearly provided that in the event of any of
information/declaration/certificate
or
document being found false, forged or
fabricated at a later date, the offer of
appointment shall be deemed to have been
cancelled.

5. The petitioner appeared for the
scrutiny of documents on the said date and
had thereafter been sent for one day
training.
Thereafter,
vide
the
order
impugned dated 12.08.2013, the offer of
appointment of the petitioner has been
cancelled.

 6. A perusal of the said order would
indicate that the respondents have stated
that
during
scrutiny
of
the
documents/credentials of the petitioner,
serious discrepancies were detected in the
signature and thumb impression as appear
in the call letter as against the signature and
thumb impression of petitioner at the time
of
scrutiny.
On
account
of
such
discrepancy,
relevant
evidences
were
referred to the Forensic Expert and it
transpired that the thumb impression and
signature obtained at the time of written
examination were different from the thumb
impression and signature obtained at the
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India Lucknow & Anr.
1057
time of scrutiny and consequently the offer
of appointment of the petitioner had been
cancelled.

7. Being aggrieved, the instant writ
petition has been filed.

8. Specific averment has been made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in
paras 15 & 16 of the writ petition that at the
time of written examination neither any
signature nor thumb impression was made
by the petitioner on any paper nor the
invigilator was instructed to take signature
or
thumb
impression
at
any
paper
consequently there cannot be any occasion
for the petitioner to have signed and affixed
his thumb impression in the attendance
sheet
which
has
prevailed
on
the
respondents
while
passing
the
order
impugned to indicate that the petitioner has
tried
to
secure
appointment
by
impersonation.

9. The other ground taken by the
petitioner is that once the petitioner had
been sent for training and offer of
appointment is of 27.11.2012 as such there
cannot be any occasion for the respondents
to have cancelled the offer of appointment
after a period of more than 9 months.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the respondents in their
counter affidavit have indicated that the
petitioner had appeared in the written
examination and thus there cannot be any
occasion now for the respondents to
indicate that there was impersonation so as
to cancel the offer of appointment of the
petitioner.

11. Another ground taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
order impugned has been passed in gross
violation of the principle of natural justice,
which thus renders the order vitiated in the
eyes of law.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also argued that the petitioner has
represented against the order impugned but
the same has not been considered.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in support of her arguments has placed
reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High
Court in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2012 In Re
Sashi Bhushan Kumar & Ors vs Union
of India & Ors

14. No other ground has been urged by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.

15. On the other hand, Shri Sharad
Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-Bank has argued on the basis
of averments contained in the counter
affidavit that it was only during the scrutiny
of the documents/credentials that serious
discrepancies
were
detected
in
the
signature and thumb impression taken at
the time of written examination in the
attendance sheet as against the signature
and thumb impression obtained at the
time of scrutiny of documents and
noticing the said discrepancies, the matter
had been referred for a report of the
handwriting expert, which was submitted
vide report dated 28/29.06.2013, a copy
of which is Annexure-CA1 to the counter
affidavit, which clearly indicates the
difference
in
signatures
and
thumb
impression of the petitioner which has
thus prevailed on the competent authority
to hold that there was impersonation
committed by the petitioner and thus,
there is no infirmity or illegality in the
offer of appointment of the petitioner
having been withdrawn.
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Shri Sharad Dwivedi, learned
counsel for the respondents-Bank also
invites attention of the Court towards the
attendance sheet, a copy of which is part of
Annexure-CA1 (Page-26) of the counter
affidavit, to indicate that all the candidates
who
had
appeared
in
the
written
examination
on
the
said
date
i.e.
27.05.2012 had signed and affixed their
thumb impressions and as such there
cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to
contend in the writ petition that the
petitioner did not sign at the time of written
examination nor any thumb impression or
signature was been made by the petitioner.

17. Placing reliance on the report of
the handwriting expert, the contention of
the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent is that Handwriting Expert has
examined both the verification form and
call letter vis a vis signature and thumb
impression of the petitioner on the
attendance sheet to arrive at a conclusion
that the person who appeared in the
written examination had signed and
affixed the thumb impression differently
from that of the petitioner and thus it is
clearly
apparent
that
somebody
impersonated the petitioner at the time of
the written examination and thus once a
fraud
has
been
committed
by
the
petitioner consequently there cannot be
any occasion even for issuance of a show
cause notice inasmuch as once there is
only one conclusion possible there cannot
be any occasion for issuance of the show
cause notice to the petitioner.

18. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

19. At the very outset, it may be
indicated that the Court had required the
respondents to produce the records.

20. Today, Shri Sharad Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the respondents-Bank
has stated that on account of reconstruction
that was taking place in the premises of the
bank, the records appear to have been
shifted and he prayed for sometime to
produce the records.

21. The same was strongly opposed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner by
contending that there cannot be any
occasion
for
production
of
records
inasmuch as the entire evidence is on
record. Thus, the Court has proceeded to
hear the counsels for the parties on the
basis of material available on record.

22. From the arguments as raised by
the learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of record, it emerges that the
petitioner had applied for appointment in
clerical cadre for the post of Assistant
under
the
respondent-Bank.
He
had
appeared in the written examination and
was declared successful. He appeared for
the interview and was thereafter declared
selected for the said post. Subsequent
thereto he was called for scrutiny of his
documents, which were scrutinized by the
respondents. Offer of appointment dated
27.11.2012
had been
issued
to
the
petitioner.
However,
vide
the
order
impugned dated 12.08.2013 his selection
for the post of Assistant has been cancelled
and the offer of appointment has been
revoked.

23. A perusal of the impugned order
would indicate that the respondents have
indicated that the signatures and thumb
impressions obtained at the time of scrutiny
and written examination are different and
thus the Bank concluded that the petitioner
had tried to procure appointment by
impersonation and thus in terms of the
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India Lucknow & Anr.
1059
Clause 12 of the offer of appointment, his
offer of appointment has been cancelled.

24.
In
support
of
there
being
difference in the signature and thumb
impression of the petitioner as made in the
call letter and the attendance list at the time
of the written examination as well as
scrutiny of the documents, the matter had
been referred by the respondents for an
expert opinion. The hand writing expert has
submitted his report dated 28/29.06.2013
which clearly indicates the difference in the
signatures and thumb impression of the
petitioner in the call letter vis a vis the
attendance
list
and
scrutiny
of
the
documents. Incidentally, no challenge has
been raised to the handwriting expert's
report on the basis of which the respondentBank has passed the order impugned and
has held that there had been impersonation
on the part of the petitioner.

25. The impugned order has been
challenged by the petitioner on various
grounds, which the Court now proceeds to
consider.

26. The first ground raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner for
raising a challenge to the order impugned is
that at the time of the written examination
neither any signature nor thumb impression
was made by the petitioner on any paper.

27. The said ground is found to be
patently fallacious and misconceived and
hence rejected. The reason is that a copy of
the attendance list has been filed by the
respondent as part of Annexure-CA-1
(Page 26 of the counter affidavit) which
indicates both the thumb impression and
the signature of the petitioner. The
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner could only have been accepted
had the attendance list contained various
blanks i.e. against the names of the
candidates who had not appeared on the
said date the column had been left blank.
However, the fact is otherwise inasmuch as
in case a candidate has not appeared, as is
clearly apparent from a perusal of the
attendance list at Sl.N.299 the said
candidate has been marked as 'absent'.
Thus, all the candidates, who had appeared
on that particular date have in fact signed
and affixed their thumb impression on the
attendance list and thus, there cannot be
any occasion for the petitioner to have not
been asked to sign on the attendance sheet
and to have not affixed his thumb
impression
and
signatures
on
the
attendance
sheet.
Incidentally,
the
attendance sheet is also having a column as
'sign (in presence of invigilator)' in which
all the candidates whose names are
indicated on the said page of the attendance
list have signed or upon being absent, have
been marked 'absent'.

28. The other ground taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner had been sent for training and the
offer of appointment is dated 27.11.2012
as such there cannot be any occasion for
the respondents to have cancelled the
offer of appointment after a period of
more than 9 months. The said ground is
also found to be misconceived inasmuch
as whenever the fraud has been detected
by the respondents and that too after
obtaining
the
expert's
report dated
28/29.06.2013 that the impugned order
cancelling the offer of appointment of
the petitioner had been passed on
12.08.2013 and thus merely because 9
months lapsed between the offer of
appointment and cancellation, the same
cannot be considered to be a valid
ground and hence rejected.
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. So far as the argument that the
respondents in the counter affidavit have
indicated that the petitioner had appeared in
the written examination is concerned, the
same has been stated on the basis of
attendance sheet which clearly contains the
thumb impression and signature of the
petitioner. However, the respondents on the
basis of expert's report have indicated that
it was a case of impersonation and
consequently once it was a case of
impersonation, as clearly proved by means
of the expert's report, clearly the said
ground merits to be rejected and is rejected.

30. So far as the ground that the order
impugned has been passed in gross
violation of rules of natural justice is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan
and ors-MANU/SC/0036/1980 has held
that where only one view is possible there
would not be any requirement of even
issuing a show cause notice. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-

"17. Linked with this question is
the question whether the failure to
observe natural justice does at all matter
if the observance of natural justice would
have made no difference, the admitted or
indisputable
facts
speaking
for
themselves. Where on the admitted or
indisputable facts only one conclusion is
possible and under the law only one
penalty is permissible, the Court may not
issue its writ to compel the observance
of natural
justice, not because it
approves the nonobservance of natural
justice but because Courts do not issue
futile writs. But it will be a pernicious
principle to apply in other situations
where conclusions are controversial,
however, slightly, and penalties are
discretionary."

31. The said judgment has also been
considered subsequently by the Hon?ble
Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh
Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali
Khan- MANU/SC/0533/2000.

32. In this regard, it would be apt to
refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate
Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati,
(2006) 3 SCC 150 wherein it has been held
as under:-

"......To sustain the allegation of
violation of principles of natural justice,
one must establish that prejudice has been
caused to him for non-observance of
principles of natural justice."

33. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Haryana Financial
Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja :
(2008) 9 SCC 31 has held that a party must
satisfy the court as to what prejudice has
been caused to it by non observance of the
principle of natural justice.

34. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Om
Prakash Gupta : (1969) 3 SCC 775 has
observed that the Courts have to see
whether the non-observance of any of the
principles enshrined in statutory rules or
principles of natural justice have resulted in
deflecting the course of justice.

35. Thus, even if in a given case there
has
been
some
deviation
from
the
principles of nature justice, the court is not
bound to interfere.

36. Nowhere in the entire petition has
the petitioner indicated as to what prejudice
has been caused to him on account of
violation of the principle of natural justice
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India Lucknow & Anr.
1061
and consequently keeping in view the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of S.L.Kapoor (supra) wherein in
case only one conclusion is possible then
the court may not issue its writ to compel
the observance of natural justice, no
interference is required.

37. From the expert?s report, it is
apparent that impersonation has been
carried out at the time of selection which
has resulted in the petitioner being selected.

38. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case
of U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee
v. B. Sheetal Nandwani (Dr), 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 680 where the students had got
admission in MBBS course by making
misrepresentation, has rejected the plea of
applicability of the rules of natural justice
observing that under the circumstances in
which such benefit had been taken by the
candidates concerned do not justify attraction
of rules of natural justice by providing them
an opportunity of hearing.

39.
Considering
the
aforesaid
judgment in the case of S.L.Kapoor
(supra) as well as expert's report dated
28/29.06.2013
which
has
conclusively
concluded that the thumb impression of the
petitioner taken at the time of examination does
not match with the thumb impression of the
petitioner in the bio-data cum attestation form
and that his signature on the call letter and the
attendance list do not match with the other
standard signatures which all clearly indicate of
there being impersonation by the petitioner and
thus keeping in view the expert's report which
has also not been rebutted by the petitioner no
other view in the matter is possible and thus, the
said ground is also rejected.

40. In this regard, it would be apt to
refer to the recent judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
C.Kamalakkannan vs State of Tamil
Nadu : (2025) 4 SCC 487 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the
evidence of an expert has held as under:-

"13. The locus classicus on this
issue is Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [Murari
Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 330] , wherein this Court
laid down the principles with regard to the
extent to which reliance can be placed on
the evidence of an expert witness and when
corroboration of such evidence may be
sought. The relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 707-709,
711-12, paras 4, 6 & 11)

4. We will first consider the
argument, a stale argument often heard,
particularly in criminal courts, that the
opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert
should
not
be
acted
upon
without
substantial
corroboration.
We
shall
presently point out how the argument
cannot
be
justified
on
principle
or
precedent. We begin with the observation
that the expert is no accomplice. There is
no
justification
for
condemning
his
opinion-evidence to the same class of
evidence as that of an accomplice and
insist upon corroboration. 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.
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The more developed and the more perfect a
science, the less the chance of an incorrect
opinion and the converse if the science is
less developed and imperfect. The science
of
identification
of
finger-prints
has
attained near perfection and the risk of an
incorrect opinion is practically nonexistent. 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. ?

***

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.

***

11. We are firmly of the opinion
that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of
prudence which has crystallised into a rule
of
law,
that
opinion-evidence
of
a
handwriting expert must never be acted
upon, unless substantially corroborated.
But, having due regard to the imperfect
nature of the science of identification of
handwriting, the approach, as we indicated
earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons
for the opinion must be carefully probed
and examined. All other relevant evidence
must be considered. In appropriate cases,
corroboration may be sought. In cases
where the reasons for the opinion are
convincing and there is no reliable
evidence
throwing
a
doubt,
the
uncorroborated
testimony
of
an
handwriting expert may be accepted. There
cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter
which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more
than a question of testimonial weight. We
have said so much because this is an
argument
frequently
met
with
in
subordinate courts and sentences torn out
of context from the judgments of this Court
are often flaunted.
(emphasis supplied)"

41. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Murari Lal vs State of
Madhya Pradesh : (1980) 1 SCC 704 has
held as under:-

"4. We will first consider the
argument, a stale argument often heard,
particularly in Criminal Courts, that the
opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert
should
not
be
acted
upon
without
substantial
corroboration.
We
shall
presently point out how the argument
8 All. Arpit Khanna Vs. Chief General Manager State Bank of India Lucknow & Anr.
1063
cannot
be
justified
on
principle
or
precedent. We begin with the observation
that the expert is no accomplice. There is
no
justification
for
condemning
his
opinion-evidence to the same class of
evidence as that of an accomplice and
insist upon corroboration. 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, the less the chance of an incorrect
opinion and the converse if the science is
less developed and imperfect. The science
of
identification
of
finger-prints
has
attained near perfection and the risk of an
incorrect opinion is practically nonexistent. 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.
Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted
by Professor Cross in his Evidence] .

5. From the earliest times, courts
have received the opinion of experts. As
long ago as 1553 it was said in Buckley v.
Rice-Thomas [(1554) 1 Plowden 110] :

If matters arise in our law which
concern other sciences or faculties, we
commonly apply for the aid of that science
or faculty which it concerns. This is a
commendable thing in our law. For thereby
it appears that we do not dismiss all other
sciences but our own, but we approve of
them and encourage them as things worthy
of commendation.

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. There is nothing in the
Evidence
Act,
as
for
example
like
Illustration (b) to Section 114 which
entitles the Court to presume that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he
is corroborated in material particulars,
which justifies the court in assuming that a
handwriting expert's opinion in unworthy
of
credit
unless
corroborated.
The
Evidence Act itself (Section 3) tells us that
?a fact is said to be proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the Court
either believes it to exist or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition
that
it
exists?.
It
is
necessary
to
occasionally remind ourselves of this
interpretation clause in the Evidence Act
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lest we set an artificial standard of proof
not warranted by the provisions of the Act.
Further, under Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, the Court may presume the existence
of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common
course of natural events, human conduct,
and public and private business, in their
relation to facts of the particular case. It is
also to be noticed that Section 46 of the
Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise
relevant, relevant if they support or are
inconsistent with the opinions of experts,
when such opinions are relevant. 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.

********

12. The argument that the court
should not venture to compare writings
itself, as it would thereby assume to itself
the role of an expert is entirely without
force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act
expressly enables the court to compare
disputed writings with admitted or proved
writings to ascertain whether a writing is
that of the person by whom it purports to
have been written. If it is hazardous to do
so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is
one of the hazards to which Judge and
litigant must expose themselves whenever it
becomes necessary. There may be cases
where both sides call experts and two [
Vide Correction slip No. F. 3/79 (Ed.J) dt.
21-8-80] voices of science are heard. There
may be cases where neither side calls an
expert, being ill able to afford him. In all
such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the
court to compare the writings and come to
its own conclusion. The duty cannot be
avoided by recourse to the statement that
the court is no expert. Where there are
expert opinions, they will aid the court.
Where there is none, the court will have to
seek guidance from some authoritative
textbook and the court's own experience
and knowledge. But discharge it must, its
plain duty, with or without expert, with or
without other evidence. We may mention
that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar [AIR
1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] and
Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC
1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] were cases
where the Court itself compared the
writings."

42. Incidentally, in the judgment of
C.Kamalakkannan (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had also tested the veracity
of the finding of the handwriting expert.

43. This Court has also gone through
the signatures as made by the petitioner in
the bio-data cum attestation form, a copy of
which is Annexure-5 to the petition, vis a
vis his signatures in the attendance sheet
and even to the naked eye, the said
signatures
are
completely
different
although an attempt has been made in the
attendance list to give some semblance of
similarity to the earlier signature.

44. So far as the ground that the
petitioner has represented against the order
impugned but the said representation was
8 All. Munni Lal Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1065
not considered or decided is also rejected
inasmuch as the petitioner being aggrieved
by the order impugned has filed the said
petition which itself is being decided now.

45. So far as judgment of the Calcutta
High Court in the case of Sashi Bhushan
Kumar (supra) is concerned, although the
said judgment would not be binding on this
Court, yet a perusal of the same indicates
that the writ court has not considered the
aforesaid
judgments
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court pertaining to expert's
opinion as well as the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
S.L.Kapoor (supra) pertaining to the fact
that when only one view is possible, there
would not be any requirement of even
giving a notice. Thus, the said judgment
would have no applicability to the facts of
the instant case.

46. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. The writ petition stands dismissed.

47. The Court also records the
assistance extended by Mr. Mohd Azam
Siddiqui, Research Associate of this Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1065
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 11008 of 2025

Munni Lal Patel ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar, Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether the order of the punishment is
sustainable when the enquiry is in violation of
the procedure prescribed?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: Rule
7 - When a thing is required to be done in
a particular manner then that thing should
be done in that manner alone. The inquiry
being de hors the Rules, is flawed one and
is deserved to be quashed. (Para 14, 15)

Since the procedure prescribed u/Rule 7 of
the 1999 rules makes it mandatory for the
inquiry officer to conduct oral inquiry, the
inquiry officer was hidebound in law to hold
oral inquiry unless and until he had recorded
that it was for certain reasons that he could
not summon the witnesses.