The Allahabad High Court has delivered a sharp blow to robotic disciplinary actions, ruling that a bank cannot fire employees based solely on a handwriting expert’s opinion.
The Court made it clear that such reports are essentially “weak evidence” and cannot simply steamroll physical proof like verified thumbprints and photos that were checked during the exam itself.
The Bench was remarkably blunt in its assessment and said that,
“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”.
This said order was handed down by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while deciding a petition moved by Sachin Kumar and two others.
The Court set aside the dismissal orders and directed the State Bank of India to reinstate the trio, though it noted the bank could start a fresh, more logical inquiry if it wished.
The legal drama kicked off following a 2009 recruitment drive in State Bank of India for clerks where the petitioners successfully cleared every hurdle i.e. the written test, the interview, and the probation period.
Their careers were wrecked three years later when an anonymous complaint surfaced, alleging they had used “proxies” to sit for their examinations.
In this backdrop, the principal issue before the Court was whether a bank could legally terminate confirmed staff using nothing but a signature mismatch report, despite their own officials having verified the candidates’ identities on-site.
Upon examining the record, the Court leaned on the logic of Murari Lal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 531 which describes handwriting analysis as an “imperfect science”.
The Bench was particularly annoyed that the bank ignored the petitioners’ photographs and thumbprints present on their original call letters.
The bank’s failure to examine the invigilator and its refusal to allow the employees to question the forensic expert amounted to a clear departure from the basic tenets of fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Read also:Â https://practicinglawyer.in/allahabad-hc-live-in-relationship-spousal-rights/
Towards the conclusion, the Court criticized harshly the “mechanical” nature of the bank’s internal process, noting that the disciplinary authority failed to record any independent findings.
The Bench remarked that by doubting the petitioners’ credentials without concrete proof, the bank was actually casting a shadow on the integrity of its own examination system.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned dismissal order which was challenged in the instant writ petition.
While the bank has the liberty to start a new probe, the Court warned that any such inquiry must look at the full picture including “photograph, thumb impression and signature” rather than obsessing over a single forensic opinion.
Case: Sachin Kumar and 2 others vs Union of India and 3 others
Case No: Writ – A No. – 38777 of 2015
Date of Order: 15.04.2026
Status: Allowed
