Allahabad High Court
Jyoti vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 20 March, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40994
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1696 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jyoti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Jay Vishwanath Pandey,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on 13.02.2023, was sent on training on 17.03.2023 and after successfully completing her training on 16.03.2024, she was awarded posting as Sub Inspector on 17.03.2024 and ever since then, she was continuously discharging her duties but suddenly her service has been dispensed with by the order impugned on the ground that biometric impression could not match with her thumb impression taken at the time of examination, hence her selection was bad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has adverse civil consequence and hence at least an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to her before passing the order impugned. He has placed reliance upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India and others; 2018 (6) ADJ 369 in which vide paragraphs-25 to 30, the Court has held thus:-
"25. The report of CFSL based upon handwriting expert's opinion, moreover, has not been furnished to the petitioners. Petitioners consequently had no opportunity to controvert it. Attention of the Court has been invited to pages 252, 253, 273, 274, 333 and 334, which contain identical expressions. Report at pages 513, 594 and 554 also contain identical language. In case an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners then all such materials could have been highlighted.
26. The respondents were expected to confront the petitioners with material relied upon against them. A show cause containing such materials was required to have been issued, particularly when petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any other exam conducted by Commission for three years. The notice dated 5.8.2015 cannot be construed as a show cause notice. It only called upon the petitioners to give their specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impression in view of Commission's opinion that they do not match. After the CFSL report was received neither the petitioners were put to any notice, nor the content of report was made known to them.
27. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their officers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic.
28. Respondents cannot find support for their action on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in Dhirjo Kumar Sengar (supra), inasmuch as compassionate appointment was claimed by the respondent Dhirjo Kumar Sengar on the basis of his adoption. The adoption itself was not established. In such circumstances, it was observed that facts of the case clearly fell in the well recognized exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem. The present case also does not fall in category of cases of mass-copying, where exclusion of principles of natural justice stands judicially recognized. As a matter of fact, no adverse report was ever received at the time of examination and it is at a subsequent point of time that allegation of impersonation is made and held to be proved only upon opinion of handwriting expert. The judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon by the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 1996 SC 2052. This judgment relates to land acquisition proceedings and has no relevance for present purposes.
29. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed.
30. It shall, however, be open for the respondents to verify identity of petitioners upon material and evidence admissible in law by following the principles of natural justice. The required exercise be undertaken preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, as petitioners have already lost sufficient time. Based upon such consideration, the respondents shall take a fresh decision in the matter relating to grant of appointment to the petitioners."
4. It is submitted that the said judgment was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1045 of 2018, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.05.2019. It is further submitted that these above judgments have been continuously followed by this Court in number of cases and latest in the series is a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijay Pal and others vs. Union of India and others; Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018 decided on 16.05.2023.
5. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary while placing instructions before the Court, has contended that these are the cases in which fraud has been committed by the candidates by impersonating them at the time of examination and if fraud is found on the basis of report obtained from the technical laboratory then it could be taken to have vitiated the entire selection process on the principle that fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings. However, learned Standing counsel could not show any authority contrary to the authorities in which law has been laid down that even if the hand writing expert opinion is to be taken into consideration, that should be taken to be final without giving opportunity of hearing to the authority concerned.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the respect parties and having perused the record, I find that the order has been passed ex-parte in a sense that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing while the authorities proceeded to rely upon the opinion of hand writing expert. The law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench and affirmed in appeal and further the Division Bench of this Court has held that such action cannot be sustained in law.
7. In view of the above, petition succeeds and is allowed.
8. The order dated 27.10.2024 and consequential order dated 8.11.2024 terminating the services of the petitioner are hereby quashed with consequential benefits.
9. However, it is left open for the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law laid down by the authorities referred to herein above and if show cause notice is issued, petitioner would be required to submit his explanation within two weeks thereof and the authorities shall be passing final order in terms of above judgment as quoted.
Order Date :- 20.3.2025
Shiraz
