Denial Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Expert Whose Report Is Relied Upon Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
The Court held that failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine a handwriting expert and reliance solely on such opinion evidence vitiates disciplinary proceedings as being contrary to principles of natural justice.
The Allahabad High Court held that the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine an expert whose report is relied upon in disciplinary proceedings vitiates the entire process as being violative of principles of natural justice.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the State Bank of India dismissing the petitioners from service on allegations of securing appointment through impersonation and unfair means in a recruitment examination.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed: “The right to cross-examine the witnesses is an essential part of the doctrine of fairness and principles of natural justice, … 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."
“Not providing an opportunity of cross-examination to petitioners on the pretext that the handwriting expert's 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 cross-examination to demolish the conclusion of handwriting expert and the same is essentially part of principles of natural justice”, the Bench added.
Advocates Ashok Khare appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Ashutosh Mishra, ASGI, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioners were appointed as Clerks in the State Bank of India pursuant to a recruitment process conducted in 2009, having successfully cleared the written examination and interview. They joined the service in 2010 and were subsequently confirmed after completing probation.
Subsequently, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging that the petitioners had secured their appointments through impersonation and the use of unfair means in the written examination. The allegations were primarily based on a handwriting expert report, which opined that the signatures on the examination call letters did not match the admitted signatures of the petitioners.
The petitioners denied the allegations and specifically sought cross-examination of the handwriting expert as well as the invigilator present during the examination. However, no departmental witness was produced, and the disciplinary authority relied solely on the handwriting expert's report to dismiss the petitioners from service. The appellate authority affirmed the dismissal.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted and emphasised that fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice are fundamental requirements in such proceedings.
The Court noted that the handwriting expert report, being opinion evidence, was the sole material relied upon by the disciplinary authority, and yet the expert was neither produced as a witness nor made available for cross-examination.
Rejecting the reasoning of the appellate authority, the Court observed: “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.”
The Court further clarified that acceptance of the authenticity of a document does not amount to acceptance of its contents, and that even where execution is not disputed, the conclusions drawn therein remain open to challenge through cross-examination.
The Court also took note of the fact that other crucial evidence, such as the invigilator’s verification of the petitioners’ identity through photograph and thumb impression, was neither examined nor considered.
It observed: “"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."
The Court emphasised that disciplinary proceedings must consider all relevant material and cannot be based solely on an untested expert opinion, particularly when corroborative evidence is available but ignored.
Conclusion
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to a violation of principles of natural justice and reliance on incomplete and untested evidence.
Accordingly, the impugned orders of dismissal and the appellate order were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondent Bank to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:81720)
Appearances
Petitioners: Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare, Advocates
Respondents: Ashutosh Mishra; A.S.G.I.; Jayant Banerji; Satish Chaturvedi; Shyam Singh Sengar, Advocates