Evidentiary Value Of Handwriting Expert's Report Will Depend On Facts And Circumstances Of Each Case: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the evidentiary value of report of handwriting expert depends on facts and circumstances of each case.

Justice Vikram D. Chauhan held

“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.”

Petitioners applied for post clerk in State Bank of India in general category and scheduled caste category respectively. They emerged successful in written examination and after the interview, they were appointed on the post of clerk in 2010. Their services were confirmed after serving on probation for 6 months.

In 2013, petitioners were issued notices based on a complaint against them alleging that they had obtained the appointment by fraud. Subsequently, they were placed under suspension. After a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, petitioners were dismissed from service.

Petitioners challenged their dismissal on grounds that no departmental witness was produced in the disciplinary proceedings and that the petitioners were not permitted to cross-examine the handwriting expert who had given the report against them. It was argued that the appellate authority had stated that the report of the handwriting expert was a mere opinion and there was no need to cross-examine him.

It was argued that sole reliance could not be placed on the report of the handwriting expert who was never cross-examined especially when request was made to cross-examine him.

The Court observed that the fact that the dismissal was based solely on the handwriting expert's report was undisputed. It observed that the call letters which were examined by the handwriting expert also contained pictures and thumb impressions of the petitioners which were verified by the invigilator.

It observed that no explanation was offered by the Bank for not examining the Invigilator who verified the photographs and signatures of the petitioner.

Observing that the science behind handwriting recognition is not perfect, the Court held

“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 Court held that merely because the Department had accepted the report of the hand-writing expert, the opportunity to cross-examine him cannot be taken away from the petitioners.

Observing that right to cross-examine is essential part of principles of natural justice, the Court held that even the appellate authority had brushed aside the specific plea regarding cross-examination, which was not sustainable.

“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 cross-examination to demolish the conclusion of handwriting expert and the same is essentially part of principles of natural justice.”

Noting that the fact that invigilator who verified the identity of the petitioners was not examined or produced as a witness, the Court set aside the termination order and gave liberty to the bank to proceed afresh against them.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Sachin Kumar and 2 others v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 224

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 224

Click Here To Read/Download Order