# Sachin Kumar & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1915
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 38777 of 2015
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-kumar-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-54902
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1915
(2026) 4 ILRA 1915
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 38777 of 2015

Sachin Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether a disciplinary authority can rely solely on an uncorroborated, opinion-based handwriting report to
dismiss an employee, particularly when other primary modes of physical identification are available?
(b) Whether an employee's admission regarding the authenticity of an official document legally equates to
admitting that the internal findings and conclusions of that document are true, thereby waiving the right to
cross-examination?
(c) Whether a departmental inquiry fundamentally flawed if the employer suppresses or ignores primary
biometric and eyewitness indicators (thumbprints, verified photos, and invigilator testimony) tied to its own
verification process?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The three petitioners were recruited as Clerks (Assistants) by the State Bank of India (SBI)
through a competitive selection process initiated via an advertisement dated 08.08.2009. They successfully
cleared the written examination held on 08.11.2009, passed their interviews, and were appointed in late 2010.
Following a successful six-month probation period, they were confirmed in service by May 2011. In 20122013, following external complaints alleging fraudulent recruitment, the Bank placed the petitioners under
suspension. SBI subsequently issued a charge-sheet on July 11, 2013, accusing them of adopting unfair
means and hiring impersonators to take the written examination on their behalf.
The Bank's case rested entirely on a report dated 19.11.2012, from a Forensic Science Laboratory handwriting
expert, which concluded that the signatures on the written exam call letters did not match the petitioners'
genuine signatures. No other departmental witnesses were examined. Based solely on this report, the
Regional Manager dismissed the petitioners from service on 17.01.2014, and the Deputy General Manager
rejected their subsequent statutory appeal on 11.03.2015. The petitioners moved the High Court to challenge
these orders.
B.(i) A handwriting expert's report is a document prepared by a specialist, analysing handwriting
or documents to help resolve disputes. Its nature as evidence is opinion-based. The opinion of
handwriting expert is based on familiarity resulting from frequent observation and experience.
The science of handwriting recognition is not a perfected proposition. (Para 11)

In disciplinary proceedings, the question to be probed is targeted towards finding as to whether the employee
is guilty of misconduct as would merit punishment. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case, which are sufficient for the employee to be punished. (Para 12)
1916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
While passing the impugned order dated 17.01.2014, findings are based on handwriting expert report without
there being any independent finding being recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The
disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order further has not taken into consideration the effect of
thumb impression and the photograph of petitioners on call letter. In the disciplinary proceedings, handwriting
expert was never examined, and was not permitted to be cross-examined by the employee/petitioners. (Para
13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24)

Petitioners argued that the request was made to the Enquiry Officer for examination of the invigilator,
however, aforesaid request was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The invigilator verified the photograph,
thumb impression as well as signature of petitioners on the call letter of written examination and as such, he
was the best person to have certified the presence of petitioners at the time of written examination. In reply
submitted by petitioners, a specific stand was taken for cross-examination of invigilator, however, the
aforesaid fact was ignored in the enquiry proceedings. (Para 24)

The impugned order of dismissal has been passed relying on mismatch of signature of petitioners on call letter
with sample signatures based on report of handwriting expert. The other two factors (photograph and thumb
impression) which were also the factor of identification of petitioners, had not been considered. (Para 16, 27,
28)

B.(ii) In disciplinary proceedings, "preponderance of probability" is the legal standard of proof
used to determine if an employee is guilty of misconduct. It means that, based on the evidence
presented, it is more likely than not that the alleged incident occurred. The decision is to be based on a
careful weighing of all available facts and circumstances. The scales are to be perfectly balanced and all
evidences, facts and circumstances must be considered to come to finding of misconduct. (Para 17)

It was imperative for respondent-Bank to have verified participation of petitioners in written examination by
verifying all factors/modes of identification of petitioners w.r.t. his presence at the time of written
examination. The respondent-Bank by doubting the candidature of petitioners is in fact challenging it's own
examination process and the verification conducted by invigilator appointed by respondent-Bank. It is not the
case of respondent-Bank that the recruitment department has reported any fault in the examination process.
(Para 18)

C. If a party admits to the documents authenticity and genuineness thereby accepts that the
document, was signed by the person it claims to be signed by, and is not a forgery. However, the
aforesaid would not amount to admitting that the information, allegations, contents or
statements written in the document are true or accurate. It is to be seen that accepting the
authenticity of handwriting expert report would only mean that the handwriting expert report has been
submitted by the authority concerned and the aforesaid would not have effect to have admitted the contents
of handwriting expert report. The acceptance of the authenticity and genuineness of the handwriting expert
report would not have the effect that the department would not give opportunity to delinquent employee to
cross examine the hand writing expert. (Para 21)

D. The right to cross-examine the witnesses is an essential part of the doctrine of fairness and
principles of natural justice. It is settled law that departmental proceedings should be fair, just
and reasonable. The principle of natural justice is required to be followed at each step in departmental
proceeding so that right of an employee to defend may not be prejudiced. Even in the memo of appeal
preferred by petitioners, they had raised the issue with regard to non-production of handwriting expert for
cross-examination before appellate authority, however, the appellate authority has brushed aside the
aforesaid contention of petitioners on the ground that petitioners have admitted the genuineness and
authenticity of handwriting expert report. The aforesaid finding of appellate authority is not sustainable in the
eyes of law in view of the reasoning given hereinabove. (Para 22)
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1917
E. It is to be seen that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated to enquire into the alleged
misconduct of an employee and come to a fair finding of fact w.r.t. the misconduct alleged to
have been conducted by the employee. The employer is expected in the disciplinary proceeding
to bring the best available evidence to prove the charge of misconduct against an employee. In
the present case, neither invigilator was examined as a witness in support of departmental charge-sheet nor
impugned order of dismissal has taken into consideration the endorsement of invigilator on the call letter for
written examination that the thumb impression, photograph and signature were verified by invigilator. (Para
25)

In view of the above-mentioned reasoning, the impugned order dated 17.01.2014 passed by respondent no.4
and order dated 11.03.2015 passed by respondent no.3 are set aside. Liberty granted to respondent-Bank to
hold disciplinary proceeding afresh against petitioners. (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 (6) ADJ 369 (Para 4-C)
2. Union of India and others Vs. Devendra Kumar Chaudhary and others, 2018 (9) ADJ 570 (Para 4-C)
3. Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 others, Order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Writ-A No.8534 of
2018 (Para 4-C)
4. Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531 (Para 11)
5. Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, 2003 (3) SCC 583 (Para 27)

List of Keywords
selection, suspension, complaint, recruitment, fraudulent, signature, unfair means, dismiss, handwriting.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare
For Respondent(s): Ashutosh Mishra, A.S.G.I., Jayant Banerji, Satish Chaturvedi, Shyam Singh Sengar

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

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned
counsel for respondent-Bank

2. The writ petition is preferred by petitioners challenging the order dated 17.1.2014 passed
by respondent no.4-Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Meerut and
order dated 11.3.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy General Manager (B&O), Administrative
Office, Noida.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

 (i) An advertisement dated 8.8.2009 was issued by respondent Bank for recruitment to the
post of Clerk in State Bank of India. In pursuance to said advertisement, petitioner no.1-Sachin
Kumar and petitioner no.2-Sanjeev Kumar applied under general category, while petitioner no.3Vipin Kumar applied under Schedule Caste category. In pursuance to above-mentioned
advertisement, petitioners appeared in written examination. Call letters of petitioners are annexed
as Annexure Nos.2A, 2B and 2C to the writ petition. The result of written examination was
declared on 3.3.2010 and petitioners were declared successful in aforesaid written examination.
1918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Thereafter, petitioner no.1 appeared for interview on 1.5.2010, while petitioner no.3 appeared for
interview on 27.4.2010 and petitioner no.2 also appeared for interview. Final result of abovementioned recruitment process was declared on 29.9.2010 wherein petitioners were selected for
appointment on the above-mentioned post.

 (ii) In pursuance to above-mentioned selection of petitioners, petitioner no.1 submitted
his joining on 18.12.2010 as Assistant in Baraut main branch, while petitioner no.2 submitted his
joining at Agrawal Mandi, Tatri, District Baghpat and petitioner no.3 submitted his joining at
Kotana Branch, District Baghpat. Initially, petitioners were appointed on probation for six months,
however, after completion of aforesaid period, petitioners were confirmed in service.

 (iii) On 9.10.2013, a notice was issued to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to the effect that a
complaint has been received with regard to fraudulent appointment in the bank. The petitioner
nos.1 and 3 submitted reply denying the allegations of complaint. Petitioner nos.1 and 3 were
thereafter suspended by means of order dated 16.1.2013, while petitioners no.2 was suspended by
means of order dated 15.5.2012. The suspension of petitioners were based on allegation of
fraudulent appointment in bank service by adopting unfair means.

 (iv) Petitioner nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved by above-mentioned suspension order had
preferred Writ-A No.19868 of 2013 (Sachin Kumar and 2 others Vs. S.B.I. Thru Chairman and 2
others). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by means of order dated 12.4.2013, whereby,
this Court issued directions to the respondent-Bank that the disciplinary proceedings against
petitioners be concluded preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified
copy of the order.

 (v) Petitioners were issued charge-sheet dated 11.7.2013 in disciplinary proceedings.
Charge against petitioners were with respect to obtaining appointment in Bank service by adopting
unfair means/impersonation while attempting an examination which was held on 8.11.2009.
Petitioners thereafter preferred reply to the above-mentioned charge-sheet denying allegations.
Petitioners also sought for details of the complainant and copy of the complaint in respect of which
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioners. Petitioners also sought for crossexamination of complainant as well as the invigilator before whom petitioners appeared in written
examination. Thereafter, respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into allegations
against petitioners.

 (vi) Petitioners participated in disciplinary/enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause
notice was issued to petitioners, which was replied by petitioners. Respondents by impugned order
dated 17.1.2014 dismissed the petitioners from service. Petitioners being aggrieved by abovementioned order dated 17.1.2014 preferred an appeal before respondent no.3. The aforesaid appeal
of petitioners were rejected by order dated 11.3.2015 passed by respondent no 3.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were working on the
post of Clerk in the respondent-Bank after having been duly selected. A complaint was received by
respondent-Bank against petitioners and on the aforesaid basis, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against petitioners and a charge sheet was issued on the ground that petitioners had
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1919
adopted unfair means and impersonation while attempting the written examination, which was held
on 8.11.2009. Petitioners filed their reply denying the aforesaid allegations and disciplinary
proceedings were held. The department produced handwriting expert report to substantiate the
charge against petitioners that petitioners were not the person, who had appeared in the written
examination held on 8.11.2009.

 4-A. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the departmental proceedings no
departmental witness was produced and the order of dismissal from service was passed against the
petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners had filed an appeal. In the appeal, a specific ground was raised
by petitioners that the handwriting expert was never permitted to be cross-examined. However,
appellate authority has denied the aforesaid on the ground that the authenticity and genuineness of
the handwriting expert report was not denied by petitioners as such there was no requirement for
cross-examining the handwriting expert. The report of handwriting expert is only an opinion. The
written examination was conducted by recruitment department of Bank and invigilator was present
and admit card was signed in presence of invigilator, as such, it was imperative for department to
have examined the invigilator as a department witness.

 4-B. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that invigilator was never
examined, who was the best person to substantiate the allegations. There was thumb impression on
the admit card, which was also taken in presence of invigilator and aforesaid would have also been
an indicative factor to be considered whether the petitioners had participated in the written
examination. Mere relying upon report of handwriting expert, who was never cross-examined and
was never produced as department witness would not be tenable under law. The request for
examination of invigilator was also made, however, the same has also been turned down. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the departmental proceedings have been
proceeded is surrounded with suspicious circumstances as the department could have produced the
invigilator, who was present at the time of examination, who was employee of Bank and
examination was conducted by the recruitment department of the Bank and as such mere relying
upon the handwriting expert report is not sustainable.

 4-C. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ran
Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 (6) ADJ 369, Union of India and
others Vs. Devendra Kumar Chaudhary and others, 2018 (9) ADJ 570 and order dated
15.11.2022 passed in Writ-A No.8534 of 2018, (Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4
others).

 4-D. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that while submitting reply to charge sheet,
specific stand was taken for cross-examination of the invigilator, who was present at the time of
examination. The punishment order mechanically relies upon the handwriting expert report without
recording its independent finding.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has opposed the writ petition and submits that the
handwriting expert report was the evidence found against petitioners in the disciplinary
proceedings and on the aforesaid basis, the petitioners services have been dispensed with and the
appeal has been rejected. Petitioner have accepted the authenticity and genuineness of the
1920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
handwriting expert report, as such, once the document has been accepted as authentic and genuine,
then requirement of cross-examination of handwriting expert would not arise.

6. Petitioners had appeared in a recruitment drive initiated by the respondent Bank for the
post of Clerk in State Bank of India. Petitioners participated in written examination held on
18.11.2009 and were issued call letter for written examination which are Annexure Nos.2A, 2B and
2C to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforementioned call letter for written examination would go
to show that call letter contained signature of petitioners as well as of Invigilator. The aforesaid call
letter also carried thumb impression of petitioners made in the presence of Invigilator (as per call
letter). The call letter also contained photograph of petitioners. Petitioners after the written
examination were declared successful and, thereafter, were called for interview. The final result
was declared on 29.9.2010 wherein all the petitioners stood selected for appointment. Petitioners
were issued appointment letter and, thereafter, submitted their joining in the year 2010. Petitioners
completed their probation successfully and after completion of probation period were confirmed in
service by order dated 9.5.2011.

7. The respondent-Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners on the
ground that petitioners had adopted unfair means and impersonation while attempting written
examination for the post in question with the respondent-Bank. Petitioners denied the allegations
made in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioners. The employer relied upon the report of
handwriting expert dated 19.11.2012 to substantiate charges against petitioners with regard to
unfair means and impersonation. The handwriting expert compared signature of petitioners on call
letter for written examination with other signature and thereafter came to conclusion that signature
on call letter was not written by the same person as the other signature.

8. It is not in dispute between the parties that except for above-mentioned handwriting
expert report, no departmental witness was examined nor other material was relied upon by
employer in support of the charges. The dismissal order dated 17.1.2014 was passed against
petitioners solely relying upon handwriting expert report issued by the Forensic Science
Laboratory.

9. The primary submission of learned counsel for petitioners is to the effect that the
handwriting expert report was only an opinion and it was imperative on the part of department to
have relied upon substantive evidence with regard to allegation to corroborate the conclusion
arrived by the handwriting expert.

10. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the handwriting expert report was the
only evidence found against petitioners in the disciplinary proceeding and the same was enough for
passing the dismissal order against petitioners.

11. A handwriting expert's report is a document prepared by a specialist, analysing
handwriting or documents to help resolve disputes. Its nature as evidence is opinion-based. The
opinion of handwriting expert is based on familiarity resulting from frequent observation and
experience. The science of handwriting recognition is not a perfected proposition. The Hon'le
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1921
Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531 with regard to the
value of a handwriting expert has observed as under :-

 "We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which
has crystalized 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."

12. In view of above mentioned, handwriting expert opinion is not a perfected proposition
and is based on science of comparison and observation. In disciplinary proceedings, the question to
be probed is targeted towards finding as to whether the employee is guilty of misconduct as would
merit punishment. The standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability. It will depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case, which are sufficient for the employee to be punished.
The question whether the report of handwriting expert itself can be enough to proceed against the
employee and disciplinary proceedings will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

13. It is admitted case that in the disciplinary proceedings, handwriting expert was never
examined. The aforesaid expert further was not permitted to be cross-examined by the
employee/petitioners. Further, the call letter on which the disputed signature of petitioners was
examined by the handwriting expert also contained the photograph, thumb impression of
petitioners. The aforesaid call letter for written examination, also stated that thumb impression of
petitioners was made in the presence of Invigilator and signature of petitioners on call letter was
also obtained in the presence of invigilator. Further, invigilator has also certified that signature of
petitioners was obtained in his presence and photograph of petitioners on call letter for written
examination was verified by invigilator.

14. No explanation is offered by counsel for respondent-Bank as to why the invigilator was
not witnessed in departmental proceedings. The respondent-Bank has also not disputed the fact that
signature & thumb impression of petitioners were obtained in presence of invigilator (as has been
stated in the call letter). Further, counsel for respondent-Bank has not explained the fact that the
photograph of petitioners has been verified by invigilator (as has been noted in the call letter itself).
No dispute has been raised before this Court by counsel for respondent-Bank that the photograph of
call letter does not belong to petitioners. It is important to note that recruitment to the post in
question was carried on by the respondent-Bank itself through its recruitment department.

15. It is important to note that while passing the impugned order dated 17.1.2014, findings
are based on handwriting expert report without there being any independent finding being recorded
by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority while passing the
1922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order further has not taken into consideration the effect of thumb impression and the
photograph of petitioners on call letter.

16. The examination for recruitment in the Banks is required to be free and fair. If the
examination is found to be unfair then it was for the examining body to have reported the same.
Various mechanisms were embedded in the examination process to verify the identity of candidate
as the call letter contained photograph of petitioners (verified by Invigilator), thumb impression and
signature of petitioners. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed relying on mismatch of
signature of petitioners on call letter with sample signatures based on report of handwriting expert.
The other two factors (photograph and thumb impression) which were also the factor of
identification of petitioners, had not been considered while passing the impugned order.

17. In disciplinary proceedings, "preponderance of probability" is the legal standard of
proof used to determine if an employee is guilty of misconduct. It means that, based on the
evidence presented, it is more likely than not that the alleged incident occurred. The decision is to
be based on a careful weighing of all available facts and circumstances. The scales are to be
perfectly balanced and all evidences, facts and circumstances must be considered to come to
finding of misconduct.

18. It was imperative for respondent-Bank to have verified participation of petitioners in
written examination by verifying all factors/modes of identification of petitioners with regard to his
presence at the time of written examination. The respondent-Bank by doubting the candidature of
petitioners is in fact challenging it's own examination process and the verification conducted by
invigilator appointed by respondent-Bank. It is not the case of respondent-Bank that the recruitment
department has reported any fault in the examination process.

19. The handwriting expert was not examined in disciplinary proceedings. The report of
handwriting expert, which is not subjected to cross-examination by employee is a weak piece of
evidence, more particularly when the call letter provides other modes of identification i.e. thumb
impression and photograph, which were verified by invigilator. The circumstances and facts of the
present case do not warrant that a mere handwriting expert report be concluded as conclusive
evidence in respect of passing the impugned order against petitioners. The disciplinary proceedings
scope should have been wide enough to have considered all the evidences, material, facts and
circumstances with regard to identification of petitioners to have participated in the written
examination conducted by Bank, however, in the present case handwriting expert report has only
been considered, which is in the nature of the opinion and was not even subjected to crossexamination.

20. One of arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent-Bank was to the effect that
the cross-examination of handwriting expert was not required as the petitioners admitted the
authenticity and genuineness of handwriting expert report.

21. It is to be seen that accepting the authenticity of handwriting expert report would only
mean that the handwriting expert report has been submitted by the authority concerned and the
aforesaid would not have effect to have admitted the contents of handwriting expert report. It is
4 All. Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1923
settled law that if a party admits to the documents authenticity and genuineness thereby accepts that
the document, was signed by the person it claims to be signed by, and is not a forgery. However,
the aforesaid would not amount to admitting that the information, allegations, contents or
statements written in the document are true or accurate. Petitioners were not given any opportunity
by respondent-Bank to cross-examine the handwriting expert, who has submitted the report. The
acceptance of the authenticity and genuineness of the handwriting expert report would not have the
effect that the department would not give opportunity to delinquent employee to cross examine the
hand writing expert.

22. The right to cross-examine the witnesses is an essential part of the doctrine of fairness
and principles of natural justice. It is settled law that departmental proceedings should be fair, just
and reasonable. The principle of natural justice is required to be followed at each step in
departmental proceeding so that right of an employee to defend may not be prejudiced. Even in the
memo of appeal preferred by petitioners, they had raised the issue with regard to non-production of
handwriting expert for cross-examination before appellate authority, however, the appellate
authority has brushed aside the aforesaid contention of petitioners on the ground that petitioners
have admitted the genuineness and authenticity of handwriting expert report. The aforesaid finding
of appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the reasoning given
hereinabove.

23. The fact that handwriting expert was not cross-examined coupled with the fact that
other factors of identification of petitioners, which were available were not part of disciplinary
proceedings and further such factors and circumstances were not considered by disciplinary
authority and only relying upon the handwriting expert report, which is not the perfect science, the
drawing of contusion by respondent authorities would not be fair more particularly when the
petitioners had already been appointed and were working in the Bank after due verification of the
records and no complaint has been sent by the recruitment department of the Bank that the
recruitment process was tainted by the petitioners. Further the respondent-Bank has not examined
the invigilator in disciplinary proceeding, who was present at the time of examination and has
identified the petitioners.

24. Learned counsel for petitioners has further raised argument that the request was made
to the Enquiry Officer for examination of the invigilator, however, aforesaid request was not
accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The invigilator verified the photograph, thumb impression as well
as signature of petitioners on the call letter of written examination and as such, he was the best
person to have certified the presence of petitioners at the time of written examination. In reply
submitted by petitioners, a specific stand was taken for cross-examination of invigilator, however,
the aforesaid fact was ignored in the enquiry proceedings.

25. It is to be seen that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated to enquire into the alleged
misconduct of an employee and come to a fair finding of fact with regard to the misconduct alleged
to have been conducted by the employee. The employer is expected in the disciplinary proceeding
to bring the best available evidence to prove the charge of misconduct against an employee. In the
present case, neither invigilator was examined as a witness in support of departmental charge-sheet
nor impugned order of dismissal has taken into consideration the endorsement of invigilator on the
1924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
call letter for written examination that the thumb impression, photograph and signature were
verified by invigilator. Although in counter affidavit filed by respondent-Bank, it is stated that in
the case of petitioner no.2-Sanjeev Kumar, fingerprint expert report was obtained, however, the
aforesaid report is not part of disciplinary proceedings and as such, the same could not have been
relied upon before this court for the first time.

26. A perusal of impugned order would further go to show that no independent finding has
been recorded by disciplinary authority as to why handwriting expert report has been accepted by
the disciplinary authority and further no reasons have been recorded in the impugned order as to
why other identification marks (thumb impression and photograph verified by Invigilator) were not
considered by disciplinary authority when the same has not been disputed by respondent-Bank.

27. The judgment of Lalit Popli Vs Canara Bank, 2003(3) SCC 583 relied upon by
counsel for respondent-Bank in the facts of said case other evidence were also read as has been
stated in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment and further the court in aforesaid judgment
especially recorded that disciplinary authority took pains to carefully consider the handwriting
expert report and also looked at the documents to arrive at its own conclusion and, therefore, the
aforesaid judgment relied upon by counsel for respondent-Bank is distinguishable from the facts
and circumstances of present case. In the present case, it is not disputed by counsel for respondentBank that during enquiry proceedings no opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine
the handwriting expert, who has prepared the handwriting expert report. Further, no independent
finding is recorded by disciplinary authority in the impugned order as to why report of handwriting
expert is found acceptable despite the fact that in disciplinary proceedings the employer has not
doubted the thumb impression and photograph of petitioners on call letter which was verified by
invigilator.

28. The only material relied upon by respondent-Bank while passing the impugned order of
dismissal against petitioners is the report of handwriting expert. The aforesaid handwriting expert
was not subjected to any cross-examination and as such, there was no opportunity for
petitioners/employees to have demolished the handwriting expert report in the cross examination.
Not providing an opportunity of cross-examination to petitioners on the pretext that handwriting
expert report genuineness and authenticity was not disputed is not tenable under law as even if the
document execution is not disputed the contents of document can always be subject matter of crossexamination to demolish the conclusion of handwriting expert and the same is essentially part of
principles of natural justice. There was other material available on the basis of which the identity or
presence of petitioners at the time of written examination could have been established as has been
detailed herein above. The aforesaid factors have neither been considered in the impugned order
nor any evidence in this respect is led in the disciplinary proceeding.

29. In view of the above-mentioned reasoning, the impugned order dated 17.1.2014 passed
by respondent no.4 and order dated 11.3.2015 passed by respondent no.3 are hereby set aside. The
nature of allegation made against petitioners are serious in nature and as such, liberty stands
granted to respondent-Bank to hold disciplinary proceeding afresh against petitioners and
respondent-Bank shall also be at liberty to place the petitioners under suspension after
reinstatement of petitioners. If the respondent-Bank takes a decision to hold the enquiry afresh then
4 All. Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1925
all the materials with regard to identity of petitioners at the time of written examination
including photograph, thumb impression and signature would be taken into consideration.

30. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid directions.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1925
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 68411 of 2015

Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether a meticulous adherence to a selection procedure under an inapplicable rule framework validate
an appointment or generate an enforceable legal right?
(b) Whether the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the functioning of the institution or to direct
cancellation of the appointment in question?
(c) Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
(d) Whether the impugned order is a non-speaking one?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Anglo Junior High School Persia, Gorakhpur, was initially recognized under the U.P. Basic
Education Act, 1972, and came into the State's grant-in-aid list in 1980-81. In the year 2006, the school was
upgraded to a High School under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Between 2008 and 2012, five
sanctioned teachers retired. To fill these vacancies, the Committee of Management sought permission from
the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), who granted permission to advertise the posts on 25.06.2015.

The selection process was conducted in August 2015 under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The four petitioners (who were
fully qualified (Graduates with B.Ed. and TET certificates)) were selected by a committee that included a
nominee of the BSA. They joined the institution at the end of August 2015. Following a complaint by a third
party, the Divisional Commissioner of Gorakhpur ordered an inquiry. Based on the subsequent inquiry report,
the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) directed the BSA to remove the teachers. Consequently, on
10.12.2015, the BSA issued the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners and cancelling
their appointments.
B. Compliance with a procedure under an inapplicable statutory framework does not cure the
inherent lack of jurisdiction. Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are
illegal and do not confer any enforceable right. (Para 25)

Once the institution stood upgraded, all appointments were necessarily required to be made strictly in
accordance with the statutory provisions governing such upgraded institutions. The appointments of the
petitioners have been made under the provisions of the Rules of 1978, which are wholly inapplicable to the
institution in question. Upon its upgradation, the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P.