# Ravi Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 515
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 8534 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-47919
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I., Sri Om Prakash Srivastava, Sri
Ratan Agarwal, Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal

A. Service Law - Impersonation while
seeking
employment
-
Appointment/Salary
-
Principles
of
Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing -
The selections at public employment more
particularly
in
banking
industry
are
required to be fair and of a sterling nature.
Employment to persons who have impersonated
in
the
recruitment
process
or
selection
proceedings would demolish the very sanctity of
the recruitment process and institution itself and
as such, it is necessary that persons who have
been selected have clear credentials and have
been fairly selected in recruitment process. This
is not a mere matter of administrative procedure
but constitutional obligation that public bodies
have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and
reasonable process of selection to posts subject
to the norm of equality of opportunity u/Articles
14 and 16 is a constitutional requirement. A
person who has resorted to unfair means in the
recruitment process cannot be permitted to join
the post. (Para 20)

The question with regard to a candidate
having resorted to unfair means in
recruitment process is to be examined
by
the
appropriate
authority.
The
examination in this respect is to be
based on cogent and material evidence.
The process of an enquiry should be just,
fair and reasonable and principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
followed where an individual case is
being examined by authority concerned.
(Para 21)

In the present case, impugned order has been
passed solely on the basis of handwriting
expert report without the handwriting expert
being called for to participate in the enquiry
proceedings nor was an opportunity given to
petitioner to confront with the handwriting
expert. The methodology adopted by the
respondent in coming to the conclusion is not
fair and in fact, identity could have been
established by other modes and as such,
respondents should have called upon the
examining body to participate in the enquiry
proceedings so that a fair conclusion could be
drawn. (Para 17)

B. Once the foundation of the enquiry
proceedings
are
itself
bad
in
law,
subsequent orders are not tenable under
law - The show cause notice itself was
bad in law - Once a finding has been
recorded by the authority concerned that the
petitioner has resorted to impersonation then
issuing a show cause notice to petitioner was
of no consequence as the authority concerned
has already taken a decision against the
petitioner and as such, filing of reply to show
cause notice would have been a futile
exercise. (Para 14)

The candidate against whom the allegations
of impersonation have been levelled by the
employer has a right to confront the
handwriting expert. In the garb of providing
an opportunity to the candidate, the opinion
of handwriting expert cannot be acted upon
without there being corroboration of the
same. (Para 32)

C. The opinion

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 51,989. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
515
charged accordingly." (emphasis by this
Court)

17. A perusal of the judgment passed by
this Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited (supra) would indicate
that while passing the said judgment, reliance
has been placed on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal
Swaroop Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and
others, 2007 (102) RD 574,wherein it has
been held that the renewal of the lease is in the
nature of grant of fresh lease and while
considering such issue the terms and
conditions incorporated in the lease have to be
examined as a whole and effect has to be given
to each and every term incorporated therein. It
was also held that the renewal of the lease has
to be construed as nothing but grant of lease
for fresh period.

18. Accordingly, keeping in view the
judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra)
along with the case of Gopal Swaroop
Chaturvedi (supra), what emerges is that
admittedly, the lease-deed executed by the
petitioner, was for the period of thirty years but
clause-5 also provided for a renewal for the
same period with the mutual consent of
parties. However, the mutual consent was
required for execution of a separate lease-deed.
As such, once the lease-deed itself stipulates
that it was executed for a period of thirty years
yet also contains a renewal clause as such
keeping in view the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi (supra) as well
as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
(supra), the renewal has to be read separately
inasmuch as, the lease-deed was to be
examined as a whole and the effect has to be
given to each an every term incorporated
therein. In the instant case, the term
incorporated in the lease-deed, was for a
period of thirty years and as such, the stamp
duty payable was clearly in terms of the
Schedule-I Article 35 (a) (v) of the Act, 1899
and not in terms of the Schedule-I Article 35
(a) (vi) of the Act, 1899 as has been imposed
by the competent authority by the impugned
order dated 11.6.2010. As the said matter has
not been considered in the proper perspective
while rejecting the appeal filed by the
petitioner by the appellate authority dated
19.1.2013 as such, it is apparent that both the
orders impugned order dated 11.6.2010 and
19.1.2013 are legally unsustainable in the eyes
of law.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the instant writ petition deserves to
be allowed and is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 11.6.2010 and 19.1.2013, copy of
which are Annexure No.2 and Annexure No.1
to the writ petition are set aside. Consequently,
there may not be any occasion for setting aside
the order dated 10.5.2011 by which the recall
application has been rejected.

Consequences to follow.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 515
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 8534 of 2018

Ravi Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Sri Siddharth
Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I., Sri Om Prakash Srivastava, Sri
Ratan Agarwal, Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal

A. Service Law - Impersonation while
seeking
employment
-
Appointment/Salary
-
Principles
of
Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing -
The selections at public employment more
particularly
in
banking
industry
are
required to be fair and of a sterling nature.
Employment to persons who have impersonated
in
the
recruitment
process
or
selection
proceedings would demolish the very sanctity of
the recruitment process and institution itself and
as such, it is necessary that persons who have
been selected have clear credentials and have
been fairly selected in recruitment process. This
is not a mere matter of administrative procedure
but constitutional obligation that public bodies
have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and
reasonable process of selection to posts subject
to the norm of equality of opportunity u/Articles
14 and 16 is a constitutional requirement. A
person who has resorted to unfair means in the
recruitment process cannot be permitted to join
the post. (Para 20)

The question with regard to a candidate
having resorted to unfair means in
recruitment process is to be examined
by
the
appropriate
authority.
The
examination in this respect is to be
based on cogent and material evidence.
The process of an enquiry should be just,
fair and reasonable and principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
followed where an individual case is
being examined by authority concerned.
(Para 21)

In the present case, impugned order has been
passed solely on the basis of handwriting
expert report without the handwriting expert
being called for to participate in the enquiry
proceedings nor was an opportunity given to
petitioner to confront with the handwriting
expert. The methodology adopted by the
respondent in coming to the conclusion is not
fair and in fact, identity could have been
established by other modes and as such,
respondents should have called upon the
examining body to participate in the enquiry
proceedings so that a fair conclusion could be
drawn. (Para 17)

B. Once the foundation of the enquiry
proceedings
are
itself
bad
in
law,
subsequent orders are not tenable under
law - The show cause notice itself was
bad in law - Once a finding has been
recorded by the authority concerned that the
petitioner has resorted to impersonation then
issuing a show cause notice to petitioner was
of no consequence as the authority concerned
has already taken a decision against the
petitioner and as such, filing of reply to show
cause notice would have been a futile
exercise. (Para 14)

The candidate against whom the allegations
of impersonation have been levelled by the
employer has a right to confront the
handwriting expert. In the garb of providing
an opportunity to the candidate, the opinion
of handwriting expert cannot be acted upon
without there being corroboration of the
same. (Para 32)

C. The opinion of the handwriting expert
cannot be said to be a conclusive
evidence
specifically
when
the
handwriting
expert
has
not
been
produced in enquiry proceedings. (Para
32)

The handwriting expert report is only an
evidence of opinion and not of fact and
the same is a weak piece of evidence
regarding
proof
of
handwriting
or
signature, and as such, corroboration is
always
required
so
that
it
can
be
established that the person who has
participated in the qualifying examination
was a bonafide candidate. There were other
material available which could have established
the identity of the petitioner as the person who
participated in the recruitment process. (Para
16, 34, 35)

The Union Bank of India doubted the credential
of the petitioner on basis of signature being
different in the call letter with the signature
available with the Bank and as such, matter was
referred to handwriting expert for examination.
Other documents which were sent to the
12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
517
handwriting expert were not considered by
handwriting expert as they were photocopy of
original document and as such handwriting
expert has not given any opinion on those
documents. (Para 23, 31)

The handwriting expert's opinion only provides
criteria for reaching the correct conclusion but
his opinion requires to be appreciated like any
other evidence on record. The report of the
handwriting expert cannot be presumed to be
conclusive. The handwriting expert's opinion is
fallible or liable to errors like any other witness.
(Para 35)

The report of handwriting expert is of an
advisory
character.
The
scientific
opinion
evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested
becomes a factor for consideration along with
other material that may be available in a given
case. The report given by handwriting
expert
does
not
go
in
evidence
automatically. (Para 36)

Claim of petitioner should not have been
rejected on the ground of impersonation
specifically when other mode of proving
identity of petitioner as valid participant
in
the
qualifying
examination
was
available to the respondent Bank by way
of photograph and thumb impression on
the call letter and attendance sheet. (Para
15)

The identity of the petitioner is required to be
established so that the examination is fair and
free. The presumption that the examination was
fair and free is in favour of the petitioner as the
examining body has never recorded any finding
against the petitioner. It is for the Bank to bring
the material and cogent evidence against the
petitioner to establish that the petitioner has
never participated in the examination and such
a procedure can only be permitted when
the officer of the examining body, who
participated in the examination and the
handwriting expert and other expert,
everybody is permitted to participate in
the proceedings. The Bank is required to
examine the participation of the petitioner in the
examination process by verifying all the
modes
and
material
available
for
validation of the petitioner's presence at
the examination centre. (Para 48)

The
respondents
by
doubting
the
candidature of the petitioner is in fact
challenging the examination process and
the verification conducted by Invigilators
and examining body during examination
process with regard to presence of the
petitioner at the time of examination. Once
the examining body has not reported any fault
in the examination process and has cleared the
candidate for selection then doubting the
presence of the petitioner at the time of
examination would require the examining body
to be part of the enquiry process and to further
examine the various identification process
established by the examining body at the time
of examination. In the present case, no such
procedure has been followed by the respondent
Bank and the Bank has not proceeded in
accordance with law. (Para 48)

Remanded back to the Higher Authority
than AGM. Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Precedent followed:

1. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. Vs
Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 (Para 14)

2. M/s Bcits Pvt. Ltd. Vs Purvanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. & anr., (2022) ILR 7 All. 102
(Para 14)

3. Sushil Kumar Gautam Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 15075 of 2010, decided on
22.08.2022 (Para 16)

4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Devendra Kumar Chaudhary
& ors., (2018) 0 Supreme (All) 961 (Para 16)

5. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ
Petition No. 2813 of 2017, decided on
16.04.2018 (Para 16)

6. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Ran Vijay Singh & ors.,
Special Appeal No. 1045 of 2018, decided on
08.05.2019 (Para 16)

7. Rajesh Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ-A No.
56499 of 2011, decided on 05.11.2014 (Para 16)
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Murari Lal Vs St. of M. P., AIR 1980 SC 531
(Para 31)

Present writ petition assails order dated
09.02.2018, passed by Assistant General
Manager (Human Resource), Department
of
Personnel
Manpower
Planning
&
Recruitment
Division,
Central
Office,
Mumbai.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned counsel for
the respondents.

2. The present writ petition is
preferred challenging the order dated
9.2.2018 passed by respondent no 4.
Further prayer has been made in the writ
petition
for
directing
the
respondent
authorities to appoint the petitioner as the
Single Window Operator-A/Clerk in the
respondent department and to pay his
regular monthly salary every month.

3. The Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection notified a common recruitment
process for recruitment in clerical grade for
the 19 Banks including the respondentUnion Bank of India. The advertisement
notified the time schedule under which
01.09.2014 was specified as the last date
for online registration and 17.11.2014 as
the date for downloading call letters for
examination in December 2014. The result
were to be declared in February 2015.

4. The petitioner in pursuance to the
aforesaid
advertisement
submitted
his
application for participating in the abovementioned recruitment process. Petitioner
was issued admit card for appearing in the
written examination scheduled to be held
on 13.12.2014 in which petitioner was
required to appear in the said examination
at the examination centre being Dr. Rizvi
College of Engineering, Kaushambi.

5. The petitioner participated in the
online examination held on 13.12.2014.
Result of aforesaid examination was
declared by examining body being Institute
of
Banking
Personnel
Selection
and
petitioner was shown to have qualified
written examination. Petitioner was also
shortlisted for interview by Examining
Body.

6. The petitioner participated in the
interview and thereafter in final result,
petitioner was shown to be selected under
the OBC category for appointment in
Union Bank of India. The copy of final
result of the petitioner is annexed as
annexure 5 to writ petition.

7. In pursuance to above-mentioned
selection of petitioner, Assistant General
Manager, Union Bank of India issued an
offer of appointment to the petitioner on
25.04.2015. The candidates recruited for
the State of Uttar Pradesh were required to
report before the Field General Managers'
Office
at
Lucknow
on
or
before
30.05.2015. Petitioner reported at the
Lucknow
Office
and
completed
all
formalities.

8. On 28.12.2015 petitioner was
issued a communication by the Assistant
General Manager of respondent Bank to the
effect that during the course of reporting of
candidature of petitioner it was found that
there existed variance in the signature of
petitioner on different pages upon which
specimen of handwriting and thumb
impression was obtained from petitioner
and same was forwarded to the handwriting
12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
519
expert for enquiry. Subsequent to the
receipt
of
the
communication
dated
28.12.2015 by the petitioner there has been
no communication to the petitioner and as
such, petitioner preferred Writ Petition
No.42948 of 2017.

9. The above-mentioned writ petition
was finally disposed of by order dated
24.10.2017 while noticing the contention of
counsel for the respondent bank that a factfinding enquiry is being conducted by
respondent bank in which opinion of
handwriting expert has been called and
bank has yet to take a final view in the
matter.
The
aforesaid
order
dated
24.10.2017 further directed respondent
bank to complete the enquiry within a
period of two months after affording the
petitioner adequate opportunity of hearing
and after confronting the petitioner with the
material considered adverse to him.

10.

Respondents
supplied
the
handwriting expert report along with
documents on the basis of which, expert
has expressed his opinion. On 08.01.2018
hearing
in
the
enquiry
proceedings/concluded and on 09.02.2018
an order has been passed by the respondent
authorities rejecting the candidature of
petitioner. It is order dated 9.2.2018 which
is subject matter of challenge in the present
writ petition.

11. It is submitted by learned counsel
for petitioner that selection by Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection was notified
for common recruitment process for
recruitment in Clerical Cadre for 19 Banks
including Union Bank of India. The
petitioner applied online for registration in
the aforesaid examination and thereafter
participated in the examination and the
result was declared, in which petitioner was
shown to have been successful. Petitioner
was allotted appointment in the Clerical
Cadre in Union Bank of India. The
petitioner
had duly
reported
to
the
respondent bank and completed all the
formalities. When the appointment was not
granted
to
the
petitioner,
petitioner
approached this Court wherein learned
counsel for the Bank informed this Court
that a fact finding enquiry is being
conducted by the Bank in which the
opinion of handwriting expert has been
called and the Bank is yet to take a final
view in the matter. Considering the facts
and submission of learned counsel for the
Bank, the aforesaid writ petition being
Writ-A No.42948 of 2017 (Ravi Kumar
Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others)
was disposed of with the direction to
complete the enquiry within a period of two
months from today after giving opportunity
of hearing and also after confronting the
petitioner with the material considered
adverse to him.

12. It is further submitted that
respondent-Bank did not found selection of
petitioner to be fair and being suspicious,
Bank referred signature of petitioner to the
handwriting expert and handwriting expert
has
submitted
report
on
16.5.2017.
According to opinion of handwriting
expert, signature on call letter does not
match with admitted signature and as such,
Bank issued a show cause notice dated
6.10.2017 calling upon petitioner to show
cause
as
to
why
candidature
for
appointment in the Bank should not be
cancelled. Petitioner participated in enquiry
proceedings and thereafter impugned order
dated 9.2.2018 has been passed by the
Assistant
General
Manager
(HR),
Competent Authority thereby holding that
the identity of the petitioner could not be
established
as
the
person
who
has
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
participated in the qualifying examination
conducted by the Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while challenging the impugned order
submits that the show cause notice dated
6.10.2017 was issued with finding that
petitioner has resorted to impersonation
while seeking employment in Bank. In
aforesaid show cause notice, respondent
bank has relied upon the handwriting
expert report.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that once a finding has been
recorded by the authority concerned that
the petitioner has resorted to impersonation
then issuing a show cause notice to
petitioner was of no consequence as the
authority concerned has already taken a
decision against the petitioner and as such,
filing of reply to show cause notice would
have been a futile exercise. In this respect,
petitioner has relied upon the judgments of
the Apex Court in cases of Himachal
Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited
Vs. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768
and M/s Bcits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Purvanchal
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another,
(2022) 0 Supreme (All) 747, to submit that
the show cause notice itself was bad in law.
On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for
petitioner submits that once the foundation
of the enquiry proceedings are itself bad in
law, subsequent orders are not tenable
under law.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that petitioner had
provided
thumb
impression
and
the
photograph
while
appearing
in
the
examination and call letters also contained
photograph of the petitioner and further
when the petitioner participated in the
qualifying examination, petitioner was
identified by the examiner and thereafter,
petitioner was permitted to participate in
the examination proceedings. He submits
that there was no compliant made by the
Examining Body that the petitioner has
resorted
to
impersonation.
Qualifying
examination
was
conducted
by
an
independent body and the results were sent
to various Banks. The examining body and
persons, who were at the place of
examination i.e. Invigilator or the Centre
Superintendent has not been testified nor a
report is submitted by examining body that
petitioner has impersonated in recruitment
process. It is further urged that claim of
petitioner should not have been rejected on
the ground of impersonation specifically
when other mode of proving identity of
petitioner as valid participants in the
qualifying examination was available to the
respondent Bank by way of photograph and
thumb impression on the call letter and
attendance sheet.

16. The next submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
handwriting expert report is the only an
opinion and the same is a weak piece of
evidence and as such, corroboration is
always required so that it can be established
that the person who has participated in the
qualifying examination was a bonafide
candidate. In this respect, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments passed by this Court in Writ-A
No.15075
of
2010
(Sushil
Kumar
Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others)
decided on 22.8.2022, Union of India and
others Vs. Devendra Kumar Chaudhary
and others (2018) 0 Supreme (All) 961,
Writ Petition No.2813 of 2017 (Ran
Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of
India and others) decided on 16.4.2018,
Special Appeal No.1045 of 2018 (Union
12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
521
of India and others Vs. Ran Vijay Singh
and others) decided on 8.5.2019 and Writ
-A No.56499 of 2011 (Rajesh Kumar Vs.
Union of India and others) decided on
5.11.2014.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner further urged that there were
other material available which could have
established the identity of the petitioner as
the
person
who
participated
in
the
recruitment process.

17. On the aforesaid basis, learned
counsel
for
petitioner
submits
that
impugned order has been passed solely on
the basis of handwriting expert report
without the handwriting expert being called
for to participate in the enquiry proceedings
nor an opportunity was given to petitioner
to confront with the handwriting expert. On
the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the methodology
adopted by the respondent in coming to the
conclusion is not fair and in fact, identity
could have been established by other
modes and as such, respondents ought to
have considered the identity of the
petitioner on the basis of other modes of
identification available and should have
called upon the examining body to
participate in the enquiry proceedings so
that a fair conclusion could be drawn.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-Bank submits that in the present
case petitioner has impersonated himself in
qualifying examination and thereafter has
been selected and sent for appointment to
the respondent-Bank by the examining
body. However while examining the
credentials of petitioner, it was found that
signatures of petitioner on call letter and
attendance sheet are different from the
signature with the Bank and as such, matter
was sent to Central Forensic Science
Laboratory for handwriting examination.
The Central Forensic Science Laboratory
has submitted a report against petitioner
and on the aforesaid basis, candidature of
petitioner has been rejected, as he is not
bonafide candidate.

19. On a pointed query being made to
learned
counsel
for
respondent-Bank
whether the examining body was part of the
enquiry proceedings, he fairly submits that
the examining body was not a part of
enquiry proceedings and the order has been
passed on basis of handwriting expert
report. He has further fairly stated that
handwriting expert never participated in
enquiry proceedings.

20.

The
selections
at
public
employment more particularly in banking
industry are required to be fair and of a
sterling nature. Employment to persons
who have impersonated in the recruitment
process or selection proceedings would
demolish
the
very
sanctity
of
the
recruitment process and institution itself
and as such, it is necessary that persons
who have been selected have clear
credentials and have been fairly selected in
recruitment process. This is not a mere
matter of administrative procedure but
constitutional obligation that public bodies
have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and
reasonable process of selection to posts
subject to the norm of equality of
opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 is a
constitutional requirement. A person who
has resorted to unfair means in the
recruitment process cannot be permitted to
join the post.

21. The question with regard to a
candidate having resorted to unfair means
in recruitment process is to be examined by
the appropriate authority. The examination
in this respect is to be based on cogent and
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material evidence. The process of an
enquiry should be just, fair and reasonable
and principles of natural justice are
required to be followed where an individual
case is being examined by authority
concerned.

22. In the present case, selection
proceedings
for
clerical
cadre
were
undertaken by various Bank through a
common examining body being Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection. The said
examining body after completing the
selection proceedings have forwarded the
name of petitioner for appointment to the
respondent-Union Bank of India.

23. The Union Bank of India doubted
the credential of the petitioner on basis of
signature being different in the call letter
with the signature available with the Bank
and as such, matter was referred to
handwriting expert for examination. The
handwriting
expert
by
report
dated
16.5.2017 has opined that the admitted
signature do no match with the questioned
signature no.1 (Q1). Questioned signature
no.1 (Q1) were signature of petitioner on
call letter. Other documents which were
sent to the handwriting expert were not
considered by handwriting expert as they
were photocopy of original document and
as such handwriting expert has not given
any opinion on those documents.

24. The only document which form
the foundation for handwriting expert to
form an opinion against petitioner was call
letter which is at page 92 of the writ
petition where signature of petitioner is
provided and aforesaid call letter is
countersigned by Invigilator. A perusal of
aforesaid
call
letter
would
further
demonstrate that photograph and thumb
impression of petitioner is also provided in
the aforesaid call letter. Invigilator has
further certified candidate's signature and
left thumb impression as having been
obtained in the presence of Invigilator.
Invigilator
has
further
verified
the
photograph of petitioner on call letter.

25. The aforesaid call letter further
provided a condition in Clause 2 of the call
letter that a photocopy of photo identity
proof should be submitted along with call
letter to Invigilator in the examination hall
failing which the candidate will not be
permitted to appear for the test. The
aforesaid clause further provided that call
letter along with the photocopy of the photo
identity proof duly stapled together should
be
submitted
to
Invigilator
in
the
examination hall. The aforesaid clause
further provided that candidates should put
left thumb impression clearly and sign in
the respective space provided in call letter
in the presence of the Invigilator.

26. Further, attendance sheet of
examination held on 13.12.2014 has also
been filed at page 93 of the writ petition,
where
the
photograph
and
thumb
impression apart from the signature of the
petitioner is also available.

27. The respondents by impugned
order while examining the suitability of the
petitioner for appointment on the post in
question has come to the conclusion that it
could not be established that the person
who has signed the online examination call
letter only appeared in the interview and
further reported at FGMO, Lucknow for
document verification upon his selection
for the post.

28. The respondent authority while
passing the impugned order has proceeded
to rely upon the handwriting expert report
12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
523
and has recorded a finding that the
signatures on the call letter for online
examination
submitted
before
the
examining body are different from all other
signatures and other documents. The
authority who has passed the impugned
order in fact has proceeded to compare the
signatures to decide that the signatures of
petitioner on call letter differ from the
signature on other document. The authority
concerned has further recorded a finding
that the petitioner has not submitted any
documentary evidence to corroborate the
claim with regard to identity and presence
at the time of examination.

29. It is to be noted that examination
was conducted by a examining body which
is an independent authority. It is not a case
of respondent-Bank that any case of any
impersonation
has
been
reported
by
aforesaid examining body to the Bank. It is
only the Bank at the time of issuing the
appointment letter that the credentials of
the petitioner were verified and on the
failure of the matching of the signatures,
the present impugned order has been
passed.

30. A perusal of the call letter and
attendance sheet of examination filed along
with writ petition goes to show that it
contains signature, photograph and thumb
impression of candidate. It is not in dispute
between parties that photograph, thumb
impression and signature of the candidate
are the means by which the identity of a
candidate
at
examination
can
be
ascertained.

31. In the present case, while passing
impugned order, respondent's have relied
upon a handwriting expert report to
ascertain
whether
petitioner
has
participated in recruitment process and is a
bonafide candidate. The handwriting expert
report has indicated that signature on the
call letter does not match with the admitted
signature. The report of a handwriting
expert is an opinion. The opinion is based
on the documents produced before the
handwriting expert for examination. The art
of handwriting recognition is not a
perfected proposition. The Apex Court in
Murari Lal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1980 SC 531 has observed as under:

"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 equality 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 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
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

32. The opinion of the handwriting
expert cannot be said to be a conclusive
evidence specifically when the handwriting
expert has not been produced in enquiry
proceedings. The candidate against whom
the allegation of impersonation have been
levelled by the employer has a right to
confront the handwriting expert. In the garb
of
providing
an
opportunity
to
the
candidate, the opinion of handwriting
expert cannot be acted upon without there
being corroboration of the same.

33. A Division Bench of this Court in
Union of India Vs. Devendra Kumar
Chaudhary and others (2018) 0 Supreme
(All) 961 has observed as under :-

"63. The next question would be,
"whether report of Forensic Expert could
have been treated to be a conclusive
evidence to hold applicant-respondent
guilty
of
impersonation
justifying
punishment of removal."

64. The authority of SSC to seek
opinion from Forensic Expert in respect of
handwriting and competence of Forensic
Expert to submit its report or opinion
cannot be doubted, but when aforesaid
opinion or material is relied on as an
evidence in a disciplinary proceeding
against a Government servant, he is entitled
to cross examine Author of said opinion
since it is only a piece of evidence
expressing opinion of such Expert in a
process where Government servant was not
a party and, therefore, he is entitled to
examine Author of such opinion, otherwise
ex-parte report submitted by Forensic
Expert cannot be a valid piece of evidence
to be relied in a departmental inquiry.

65. When a document is relied,
may be an opinion of an Expert, it only
means that such an Expert has given such
opinion but about correctness of the
opinion, unless Author is allowed to be
examined by person against whom such
opinion has been expressed, and thereafter
such person is permitted to lead his own
evidence in defence to contradict the
opinion of Forensic Expert, it cannot be
said that a valid piece of evidence has been
considered in departmental inquiry. In a
departmental inquiry mere production of a
document cannot be treated to be a
conclusive evidence to prove the fact
mentioned in the said document by treating
the facts stated therein, true, unless Author
of such document owns it in a quasi
judicial inquiry proceedings and allowed to
be cross examined by affected party. We
are fortified in taking this view by Apex
Court's judgment in M/s Bareilly Electricity
Supply Co. Ltd., Vs. The Workmen and
others, AIR 1972 SC 330 where Court in
para 14 of judgment has observed:

"But the application of principle
of natural justice does not imply that what
is not evidence can be acted upon. On the
other hand what it means is that no
materials can be relied upon to establish a
contested fact which are not spoken to by
persons who are competent to speak about
them
and
are
subjected
to
crossexamination by the party against whom
they are sought to be used. When a
document is produced in a Court or a
Tribunal the question that naturally arises
is, is it a genuine document, what are its
contents and are the statements contained
therein true. When the Appellant produced
the balance-sheet and profit and loss
account of the Company, it does not by its
mere production amount to a proof of it or
12 All. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
525
of the truth of the entries therein. If these
entries are challenged the Appellant must
prove each of such entries by producing the
books and speaking from the entries made
therein. If a letter or other document is
produced to establish some fact which is
relevant to the enquiry the writer must be
produced or his affidavit in respect thereof
be filed and opportunity afforded to the
opposite party who challenges this fact.
This is both in accord with principles of
natural justice as also according to the
procedure
under
Order
XIX
Civil
Procedure Code and the Evidence Act both
of
which
incorporate
these
general
principles. Even if all technicalities of the
Evidence Act are not strictly applicable
except in so far as Section 11 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules
prescribed
therein
permit
it,
it
is
inconceivable that the Tribunal can act on
what is not evidence such as hearsay, nor
can it justify the Tribunal in basing its
award on copies of documents when the
originals which are in existence are not
produced and proved by one of the methods
either by affidavit or by witness who have
executed them, if they are alive and can be
produced. Again if a party wants an
inspection, it is incumbent on the Tribunal
to give inspection in so far as that is
relevant to the enquiry. The applicability of
these principles are well recognised and
admit of no doubt."

34. The opinion of a handwriting
expert is an opinion evidence and cannot
take place of substantive evidence. Before
acting upon the opinion of handwriting
expert one must seek corroboration either
by direct evidence or other material. The
opinion of handwriting expert is a weak
evidence regarding proof of handwriting or
signature.
The
evidence
regarding
handwriting can be arranged in the
following
order
on
the
strength
of
reliability :

a) Author himself stating that it is
in his handwriting or signature.

b) Person who has seen author
doing particular writing or signature stating
that particular person has scribed document
or signature.

c) Persons who is acquainted with
handwriting of purported author.

d) Expert opinion of handwriting
expert opinion.

35. The handwriting expert opinion
must always be received with great caution
specifically in a case when there is no
substantial corroboration. The opinion of
handwriting expert is an evidence of
opinion and not of fact. The handwriting
expert opinion only provides criteria for
reaching the correct conclusion but his
opinion requires to be appreciated like any
other evidence on record. The report of the
handwriting expert cannot be presumed to
be conclusive. The handwriting expert
opinion is fallible or liable to errors like
any other witness.

36. The report of handwriting expert
is of a advisory character. The scientific
opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing
and
tested
becomes
a
factor
for
consideration along with other material that
may be available in a given case. The
report given by handwriting expert does not
go in evidence automatically.

37. The petitioner's identity as to
whether
he
has
participated
in
the
examination conducted by the examining
body can be identified by other modes:
photograph of the petitioner available on
the call letter, which is not disputed by the
respondent Bank. Further identity of
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner can also be identified by thumb
impression
given
by
petitioner
in
attendance sheet which is also a material
evidence, which may indicate towards the
presence of petitioner in examination
proceedings. In present case, respondents
have not obtained any report with regard to
thumb impression on call letter and
attendance sheet. The identity of the
petitioner could have been verified and
corroborated through verification of thumb
impression on call letter and attendance
sheet.

38. It is also to be noted that call letter
and attendance sheet also contained the
photograph of petitioner. The handwriting
expert has only given report with respect to
one document (Q1) despite the fact that the
signatures at eight places were sent for his
opinion on various documents. Handwriting
expert has refused to express any opinion on
Q2 to Q8 documents which contain signature
of petitioner on the ground that the aforesaid
documents were reproduction copy and not
the original documents.

39. In the present case, the recruitment
process was carried on by an independent
agency being Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection.
The
aforesaid
independent
examining body has forwarded the name of
petitioner
to
respondent
bank
after
completion of recruitment process. It is not
the case of respondent bank that independent
examining
body
has
reported
any
impersonation at the behest of petitioner in
the examination/selection process. Petitioner
is a selected candidate who is said to have
passed the selection process conducted by an
independent examining body.

40. Once the selection process was
carried on by an independent body then
there cannot be any presumption that all
staff/employees of the examining body had
failed to correctly identify the petitioner.