The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal orders of three State Bank of India (SBI) employees who were terminated on allegations of impersonation during their recruitment examination. The Court observed that relying solely on a handwriting expert’s opinion without allowing cross-examination or considering other identification factors like thumb impressions and photographs violates the principles of natural justice.
Background
The petitioners, Sachin Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, and Vipin Kumar, applied for the post of Clerk in SBI following an advertisement in 2009. After clearing the written examination held on November 8, 2009, and subsequent interviews, they were appointed in 2010. They successfully completed their probation and were confirmed in service by May 2011.
However, in 2012 and 2013, the Bank suspended them following complaints of “fraudulent appointment” and “impersonation.” A charge-sheet was issued alleging they had adopted unfair means during the written examination. Following a disciplinary inquiry, the Regional Manager dismissed them on January 17, 2014, a decision later upheld by the Appellate Authority on March 11, 2015.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners, represented by Sri Siddharth Khare, argued that the dismissal was based solely on a handwriting expert’s report. They contended that no departmental witnesses, including the exam invigilator, were produced. They further argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert, which was a fatal flaw in the disciplinary proceedings.
The respondent-Bank, represented by Sri Ashutosh Mishra, opposed the petition, stating that the handwriting expert’s report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was sufficient evidence. The Bank maintained that since the petitioners had “accepted the authenticity and genuineness” of the report, the requirement for cross-examination did not arise.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan examined the nature of handwriting expert reports as evidence. Citing the Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1980), the Court noted:
“But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach… should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered.”
The Court highlighted several procedural lapses by the Bank:
- Exclusion of Other Identification Marks: The call letters contained the petitioners’ photographs, signatures, and thumb impressions, all verified by an invigilator at the time of the exam. The Bank failed to explain why these other factors were ignored.
- Failure to Examine the Invigilator: The Court noted that the invigilator, a Bank employee, was the “best person” to certify the presence of the candidates, yet was never produced as a witness.
- Denial of Cross-Examination: The Court rejected the Bank’s argument that admitting the report’s “authenticity” waived the right to cross-examination. It held that admitting a document’s genuineness (that it wasn’t a forgery) does not mean admitting the truth of its contents or the accuracy of the expert’s conclusions.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were not fair, just, or reasonable. It set aside the dismissal orders dated January 17, 2014, and the appellate order dated March 11, 2015.
Given the serious nature of the allegations, the Court granted the Bank liberty to hold a fresh disciplinary proceeding. It directed that if a fresh inquiry is conducted, all materials regarding identity—including photographs, thumb impressions, and signatures—must be considered. The Court also allowed the Bank to place the petitioners under suspension after their reinstatement if it decides to proceed with the fresh inquiry.
Case Details
Case Title: Sachin Kumar and 2 others Versus Union of India and 3 others
Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 38777 of 2015
Bench: Justice Vikram D. Chauhan
Date: April 15, 2026
