ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that when any question arises with regard to a dispute or disagreement over a signature or any other aspect, expert opinion is required for a just and proper decision in a lawsuit.
The judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, said that forensic laboratory analysis is meant for the scientific and systematic examination of physical or digital evidence to pinpoint the root cause and unearth fraud/crimes, which is now a prominent subject and tool of criminology.
The petitioners – Elahi Bakhsh, patwari in the Revenue Department, Dera Bugti, and Behram Khan, Tehsildar, Dera Bugti – were dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental inquiry. It was alleged that both officials prudently grabbed Rs13,81,282/- from Naib Wali Dad Mukhtiar Khan in respect of gift mutation of lands in Mouza Jouri and Mouza Hazar, Tehsil and District Dera Bugti, but they changed the type of mutation from hiba/gift to correction of records on 15-08-2019 and deposited only Rs200/- in the treasury. The inquiry report recommended that forensic examination of the signatures on the challans and mutation be carried out, as Behram Khan categorically denied the signature on the challan.
READ ALSO: Conversion of absence into EOL: Sanction of competent authority indispensable: SC
The petitioners approached the Balochistan Service Tribunal against the decision of the department. However, it dismissed their petitions. Following this, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
The SC judgment noted that the Tribunal’s verdict depicted that it was only focused on the storyline that the petitioners failed to rebut the allegations or provide any substantial defence.
The Supreme Court judgment expressed surprise that though the petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal, nothing was discussed as to why the forensic test/examination was disregarded, as it was the mainstay of the case to prove the guilty conscience and self-reproach of petitioner Behram Khan, who denied his signature on the challans.
The judgment said that the reckless or negligent conduct of not following the litmus test of handwriting verification on the challan destroyed the case at the departmental level. Had the handwriting on the challan been corroborated through forensic examination at the relevant time and, upon authentication, proved to be genuine, then no further bewilderment or hesitation could have persisted in proving the guilt without any further defence, but the department lost this opportunity during the inquiry proceedings.
The judgment said that the Tribunal could have compared the signature on its own, if it did not deem it necessary to send the signature for forensic verification. However, in all fairness, this crucial question should have been addressed, but it was overlooked, for which the petitioner is also equally responsible for not inviting the attention of the Tribunal.
The Court set aside the Tribunal judgment and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority/ Department with directions to conduct a de novo inquiry after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioners (in both cases), including forensic examination of the signature and documents as suggested by the inquiry officer, to prove the guilt of the petitioners within a period of three months.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments