Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Jay Prakash Sinha vs Railway on 10 April, 2026
1 OA/050/000545 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/000545
0545 of 2017
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHAR
JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH
ESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Jay Prakash Sinha, son of Drigpal Prasad, posted as Assistant
Loco Pilot (E), E.C. Railway, Khalari under CLI Khalari, E.C.
Railway, Dhanbad.
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :-
: Shri Sadan Kumar Singh
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India, through General Manager, E.C.
Railway, Hajipur.At+P.P.
Hajipur.At+P.P.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali
Vaishali
(Bihar). Pin-84401
2. The Chief Operating Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur.
At+P.O.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali.
Vaishali. Pin
Pin- 84401
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad.
At, P.O. and District-Dhanbad.
Dhanbad. Pin. 826001
4. The Additional Divisional Manager, E.C. Railway,
Dhanbad. At+P.O. and District
District-Dhanbad, Pin-826001
5. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP) E.C. Railway,
Dhanbad. At+P.O. and District
District-Dhanbad. Pin-826001
By Advocate(s)
Adv :- Shri Kumar Sachin, ld. ASC
MANOR Digitally
ANJAN signed by
MANORANJ
KUMAR AN KUMAR
Reserved on 01.04.2026
.2026
SINHA SINHA
Pronounced on 10.4.2026
6
2 OA/050/000545 of 2017
ORDER
PER :JUSTICE JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J) :-
In brief, the case of applicant is that aapplicant pplicant was appointed by the railway administration on at 18.01 1.2005 on the post of Assistant istant Loco Pilot (ALP) under (E) on the basis of his educational qualification of matriculation. The applicant, applicant at the time of appointment submitted before the concerned authority the aforesaid educational ucational certificate of matriculation examination which was verified by the authorities and found the same as genuine and correct accordingly service book off the applicant was opened by entering therein his date of birth as 10.09.1974 as was mentioned in his aforesaid matriculation examination certificate. After joining the post of Loco pilot the applicant was promoted to the post of senior Assistant Loco Pilot ilot (E).
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that on on 10/8/2014 the applicant w was as served with a memorandum of charge showing that a disciplinary proceeding for major penalty has been initiated against 3 OA/050/000545 of 2017 him, on the ground that he had concealed the fact that he appeared in the matriculation examination of the Bihar school examination board board twice in the year 1991 and further in 1992 with two different names and also two different dates of births. It has also came into light that in first matriculation examination held in 1991 he appeared by his name as Jay Prakash Sinha with date of birth as 10.09.1974 and in second time in matriculation examination in 1992 he appeared by his name as Mithiilesh Kumar with the another date of birth as 29.09.1977 9.1977 which has not been communicated to railway administration, in this way the applicant has concealed the fact which amounts to serious irregularity and therefore he acted in violation of rule of the railway service conduct rule 1966.
3. It has been further argued that tthe he disciplinary proceeding was based on documentary ev evidence idence like matriculation certificate, service book of applicant as well as evidence of Shri Kumar K mar Gyanjeet. An opportunity of clarification was also given to applicant before Shri K Kumar mar 4 OA/050/000545 of 2017 Gyanjeet. The applicant submitted his reply in which he has denied with with the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority did not consider his reply. Further the applicant submitted his defence before the authority. Although the enquiry officer pointed out that the charges levelled against him could not be proved proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority Authority required to applicant to submit his representation on enquiry report which was submitted by the applicant on 19.01.2015,
19. 1.2015, but the authority without considering his representation passed the impugned order by which the the order for removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority uthority on 18.
18.02.2015 2.2015 with effect from 28.02.2015. Further, the he applicant submitt submitted ed a memo of appeal also before the A Appellate Authority (the the Additional dditional Divisional Railway M Manager E.C. Railway ay Dhanbad but the Appellate A Dhanbad) Authority by passing a non-
non speaking and cryptic order dated 15.
15.05.2015, rejected his appeal. Thereafter, The the applicant prefe preferred rred revision before the Chief Operating O Manager anager E.C. Railway, Hajipur against the order passed by the Appellate Authority uthority as 5 OA/050/000545 of 2017 well as disciplinary authority. The Revisional Authority uthority vide order dated 22.9.2016 reduce reduced the punishment and ordered to reinstate the applicant in service but on demotion to lower stage in A.L.P. L.P.
4. Learned counsel for applicant argued that tthe he order of Revisional R authority is also wrong arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The fact before disciplinary authority, applicant authority and Revisional Authority uthority had been proved proved that applicant has never used the so called so-called second certificate of matriculation examination. At the time of joining the applicant had submitted only his first certificate of matriculation examination with his right name and correct date of birth. The above above certificate was duly verified by the authority concerned, the authorities are failed to consider the proper and proved fact hence the applicant was constraint to file present O.A. with following relief "-
"8.(i) To quash the Orders as contained in Anne Anneure-1,5,7 1,5,7 & 9.
(ii) To quash the Memorandum of charge sheet for major penalty dated 04.08.2014, (Annexure (Annexure-1).
6 OA/050/000545 of 2017
(iii) To direct the respondent to consider the representation of the applicant dated 19.1.2013.
19.1.2013."
5. Learned counsel for opposite parties on the basis of the written statement which was filed by all the opposite parties, has admitted in his argument that a major penalty charge sheet was issued by the Senior DEE/OP/Dhanbad against the applicant on 04.08.2014 in which the charge was that the applicant has passed the matriculation examination from the High School Bajra in the year 1991 and as per record his date of birth was 10.09.1974. Again the applicant appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1992 from the R.D High School, Rajgir Rajgir by name of Mithilesh Kumar stating his date of birth as 29.09.1977.
6. It has further been argued by the government counsel that the applicant has himself accepted that he has appeared twice in the matriculation examination with above two different names names and two different dates of birth hence the applicant is found responsible for concealing the fact of his appearing twice in the 7 OA/050/000545 of 2017 matriculation examinations examination with two different names and dates of birth.
birth The standard of examination was also same. In reply to the Disciplinary Authority Authority,, the applicant has denied the contention of charge that he had appeared in matriculation examination from R.D. High Scholl Rajgir.
7. It has been further argued that aafter fter conclusion of inquiry, the inquiry officer submitt submitted ed his report on 24.12.2014 wherein the charge has been found proved. Senior DEE/OP/DHN/Disciplinary Authority. After consideration and by agreeing with the report of Inquiry officer accepted the report and granted the punishment for removal from service. Accordingly, the removal notice was issued on 18.02.2015 to be effectuated from 28.02.2015.
8. It has been submitted that against the order of Disciplinary Authority, applicant applicant filed the appeal before the Appellate (The ADRM/DHN). The Appellate Authority, after hearing the matter vide order dated 15.05.2015 upheld the removal order of applicant which was passed 8 OA/050/000545 of 2017 by the Disciplinary Authority on 18.02.2015. The he order of Appellate Authority has as also been communicated to the applicant on 15.05.2015. Thereaft Thereafter, taking aking recourse of rule the applicant preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisionary Authority (COM/ECR/HJP) (COM/ECR/HJP). The Revisionary Authority, after due consideration and after providing the opportunity of hearing allowed the Revision partially and passed sed the order to reinstate the applicant in Railway service but in the lowest stage of ALP.
9. Learned counsel for opposite parties further submitted that a complaint was investigated by the office of GM(vig)/ECR/HJP and after its investigation it has been bee advised for initiation of major penalty DAR action against the applicant. Accordingly, a major penalty charge sheet was issued to applicant on 04.08.2014. The charge sheet was relied upon the documentary evidence like ::-
(i) First page of service record of aapplicant.
(ii) Matriculation certificate for passing the examination from High School Bajra ra in the year 1991 and
(iii) clarification of Shri J.P. Sinha, the applicant.
9 OA/050/000545 of 2017
10. It has been found that the service record of the applicant contains a copy of Matric pass certificate issued by BSEB, Patna showing the name of school as High School, Bajra and date of birth as 10.09.1974 10.09.1974. During uring the course of investigation, the applicant had given a statement before the Vigilance Department on 12.05.2014 that he had passed tthe he matriculation examination from High School Bajra in the year 1991 where his the date of birth is 10.09.1974 and he also appeared in the matriculation examination in the year 1992 from the RD High School Rajgir in the name of Mithilesh Kumar with the date of birth as 29.09.1977. Accordingly , the applicant has himself accepted that he had appeared twice in matriculation examination with two different names and two different date dates of birth which constitutes a serious irregularity and the conduct also nullify nullify the reliability of the applicant. Further, the applicant while replying the charge memo he has denied that he had appeared in matriculation examination from BD High School Bajra, Rajgir. The Inquiry officer after 10 OA/050/000545 of 2017 conducting the DAR inquiry submitted his report on 24.12.2014 wherein he proved the charge as mentioned in the charge memo. The inquiry officer also mentioned that his earlier statement was taken under duress and he has not appeared in 2nd school examination but the above defence of CO is not tenable in view of his own statement. The applicant has not intimated anything regarding the purported duress to the higher authority which makes his defence after thought.
11. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that the t applicant had d submitted the reply against the I.O's. report on 19.01.2015 wherein he has stated that there is no evidence regarding his appearance in matriculation examination in the year 1992 from the R.D. High School, Rajgir in the name of Mithilesh Kumar with date of birth 29.09.1977 except his statement taken under duress. Learned counsel for opposite parties also admitted in his argument that it a is the fact that the applicant did not use the 2nd certificate while entering in Railway Service but at the same tim time e it is also a fact that 11 OA/050/000545 of 2017 he appeared twice in matriculation examination with different names and different dates of birth. The fact of second examination was concealed by him from the Railway Authorities.
12. It has been argued that aas far as the question on that the opportunity of personal hearing was not given to applicant but personal hearing of CO is not necessary all the time and it is a discretion of the Appellate Authority unless he considers necessary to give railway servant the opportunity of personal personal hearing before disposing the appeal. It has further been admitted by the counsel for opposite parties that the applicant was appointed on the basis of first certificate and he has not used the second matriculation certificate in railway service for aany ny undue benefits. He further submitted that the he applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the OA and the contention of OA has no merit hence the O.A. is fit to be rejected.
12 OA/050/000545 of 2017
13. The Tribunal has heard the argument of learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record thoroughly.
14. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the applicant had been selected in Railway service on the basis of his matriculation examinat examination ion certificate. The certificate contains the name of applicant as Jai Prakash Sinha with date of birth as 10.09.1974. In railway service record of applicant, the same entries contains that the applicant Jai Prakash Sinha has passed matriculation examination in the year 1991 from High School Bajra and examination his date of birth is 10.09.1974. It has not been denied that applicant entered into railway service on 18.01.2005 that is much after the year 1991 or 1992. It has also been admitted that the applicant has not gained any undue advantage on the basis of the another matriculation examination which was conducted in the year 1992 and wherein the name of applicant was mentioned as Mithilesh Kumar with another date of birth 29.09.1977. It also reveals from the argumen argumentt of learned counsel for 13 OA/050/000545 of 2017 opposite party that the educational certificate of the applicant was verified by the employer.
15. The word concealment of fact plays its role when the knowledge of certain fact is necessary for the performance of any act. The opposite parties could not show the reason which may require from employee to provide all the previous activities of a person before providing him a job. The opposite parties have not submitted any Performa which was required to be filled up by the applicant applicant at the time of his appointment and which may contain the column to provide the details all the examination in which the employee was appeared since very beginning. It has also not been shown that the applicant somewhere has used his matriculation examination certificate of 1991 and somewhere the examination another matriculation certificate of 1992. Even the authorities while conducting the Disciplinary Proceeding against the applicant has not called any report from the R.D. High School Rajgir regarding the authent authenticity icity of the High School Examination certificate of the year 1992 14 OA/050/000545 of 2017 which was issued in the name of Mithilesh Kumar. The Investigating officer has not took pain to verify the father's name, address and date of birth as it was mentioned in the said certificat certificate from the school record.
16. In paragraph 7 of the written statement it has been mentioned by the opposite parties that a complaint was investigated by the office of GM (vig/ECR/HJP) but who was the complainant and his name has not been cited in the list of witnesses during the course of Disciplinary proceeding. May be in his written statement which was given by him during the course of inquiry on 12.05.2014, the applicant has given statement that he has appeared in the matriculation examination from R.D. High School chool in 1992 and his name is Jai Prakash Kumar Sinha @ Mithilesh Kumar. But subsequently, he has denied the allegation in his representation dated 15.08.2014 and representation dated 19.01.2015 which was submitted by him against the inquiry report and its finding.
17. Here, it is to be considered that in general such representations and pleadings ((including contention in 15 OA/050/000545 of 2017 OA) are prepared by the lawyers and in the representation as well as in OA the applicant has denied that the matriculation certificate certificate of R.D. High School Rajgir which was issued in the name of Mithilesh Kumar does not belong to the applicant. On the other hand, the authority should test and consider that without any intention of cheating /mis-representation/ /mis representation/ concealment when it has has been asked in oral statement, the applicant has fairly replied that he has appeared in the matriculation in 1992 from R.D. High School, Rajgir with the name of Mithilesh Kumar which is his pet name. The above part of statement of applicant proves his fai fairness rness and truthfulness which lacks any intention of cheating or concealment. It also appeared that if the applicant would have any malafide intention of mis mis-representation representation or concealment he could have den denied ed that the High School certificate from R.D. High School do not belong to him therefore, his integrity, integrity, truthfulness/reliablity in this regard should have been treated as certified. Under any rule/law for proving of concealment or cheating cheating, the 16 OA/050/000545 of 2017 intention is essential ingredient. There here should be an act of deceive with intention to gain some undue advantage whereas it has been concluded by the Disciplinary Authorities that the applicant has not gained any undue advantage from either railway administration or from any body else on the basis of second matri matriculation culation certificate.
Mere appearing in examination and obtaining the degree educational qualification is not an offence itself.. In degree/educational absence of marks sheet of both the examination in the record of the case, case, it may be possible that applicant would have given given examination in different subject/stream. The order of the Disciplinary Authority who gave the punishment of removal from service to applicant is silent as to how the second High School Examination Certificate is prejudicial to the railway administration and where it was mandatory condition to disclose the above fact rather how it has constituted the mis-
mis-conduct conduct or concealment of necessary fact, fact, it ha snot been shown.
18. We failed to understand that if a competent authority of railway administration had satisfied that the 17 OA/050/000545 of 2017 above act of applicant as he appeared in the second matriculation examination in 1992 was such a grave act that makes him not entitled to remain in service and due to that act is liable to get highest punishment of removal from service and even the another Senior responsible railway authority as Appellate Authority has uphold the punishment given by the Disciplinary Authorit Authority.
y. The Revisionary Authority under what assessment of fact and evidence while reinstating the applicant in service has reduced the service by demotion to lowest stage in ALP. Particularly when the Revisionary Authority has considered that the applicant ha hass never used the second High School Examination Certificate or his second name or his changed date of birth during his employment.
employment..
19. The Tribunal, after overall consideration of pleadings, documentary evidence and arguments advanced by both the learned counsels as well as applicability of rule/law, is of the considered view that the impugned charge memo dated 04.08.2014, Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.02.2015 as well as 18 OA/050/000545 of 2017 Order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15.05.2015 and Order Order passed by the Revisionary Authority dated 22.09.2016 is arbitrary and against the Principle of law and natural justice, hence the above orders are quashed and set aside. The opposite parties are directed to place the applicant on his original post with the entire consequential benefits for which applicant is entitled if he would have not been removed from service and would have not been subjected to demotion to the lowest stage in ALP.
20. The order of the Tribunal be complied with within six months from from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the office of opposite parties.
Accordingly the OA is allowed.
No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member(J) Mks/--