Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Rakesh Kumar vs Rrc (E Railway) on 16 May, 2023
é fas z & Ht SPvEp a MERAY J x Oy LO, are y A + t $ 2 0.a. 387/2016 For the Applicant : Mr. J.R. Das, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Sharma, Counsel ORDER
Per Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member:
This O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"(i)
(iii)
(vi)
(vii) To direct the respondents to take due Medical Test for appointment in Group 'D' post forthwith since already has passed the Written Test and Physical Efficiency Test and also the documents verification being complete in the scenario that there has been rigorous verification/interrogation of all . papers/original documents/signatures on different occasions, further directing the respondents to incorporate the names of the applicant in the selection list for Medical Test by amending the same or by publishing a separate memo as per rule in favour of said appointment to Gr. 'D' posts.
An order holding that the withholding of medical examination of the applicant and denial of appointment to him are bad in law and arbitrary as well as in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
An order directing the respondents to call the applicant for medical examination and to hold medical examination of the applicant for due employment within no time.
An order directing the respondents to enlist the applicant in the list of selected candidates without further delay.
An order directing the respondents to offer appointment to the applicant tin the aforesaid Gr. 'D' post at the earliest.
An order directing the respondents to produce entire records of the case since lying within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-
2.1.
The Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway published an advertisement for recruitment in Gr. 'D' post in Pay Band - I being Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- vide Eastern Railway/RRC/0110 dated 14.12.2010. The applicant Shri Rakesh Kumar applied for the said post.
haw 3 0.a. 387/2016 2.2. The applicant was called for the written examination and after qualifying in the same, was called to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). He was declared successful in the PET.
2.3. A letter dated 26.3.2013 was issued by Sr. Personnel Officer (Rectt.) asking him to attend the RRC, Eastern Railway on 11.4.2013. The said letter is reproduced below:-
Railway Recruitment Cell Eastern Railway 96, C.R.Avenue Kolkata-700 012 No. RRC/ER/Exam(0110) Misc/2010 Dated: 26/03/2013 Roll No. 42180061 Name RAKESH KUMAR Father's Name Khantar Mandal RAKESH KUMAR At ~ FULKIA POST - MOHANPUR BAZAR VIA --- NAUGACHIA DIST - PURNEA BIHAR -- 8532014 Sub: Verification of documents for recruitment in PB-1, Scale Rs.5200-20200/- with GP-Rs.1200/-against EN No.0110.
in course of verification of various documents pertaining to your candidature against EN No.0110 for recruitment in PB-1, Scale R-5200- 20200/- with GP-RS1800/-, substantial anomaly/difference/mismatch has been noticed by the experts of the respective field and on the basis of the above dis-similarity/mismatch, your candidature against EN No.0110 yet not be finalized provisionally.
Therefore, you are requested to attend in the office of Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, 56, C.R.Avenue, 1 Floor, RITES Building, Kolkata - 700 012, on 11/04/2013 at 11.00 hrs. positively and for providing Natural Justice you may have the opportunity to cross- examine the dis similarity/mismatch established by the experts of the respective field. You may also have the opportunity to put your opinion/ part, if desired, in your support.
You are further requested to bring the following documents invariably on the above mentioned date and time.
1. All the original certificates including caste certificate (if any)
2. One copy of attested/self attested of each certificate
3. Lower portion of call letter of written test and PET respectively 4 Spare copies of photographs which you have pasted on the application form, verification sheet and PET call letter sheet (if available) 5S. One Black ball point pen.4 0.a. 387/2016
6. Two recent passport size coloured photograph without wearing goggles and cap If you failed to turn up on above mentioned date, no further chance may be given and your Candidature may not be considered for further course of recruitment activities against EN No. 0110 Sd/-
(S.S. Roy) Sr. Personnel Officer/Rectt."
2.4. Thereafter, the applicant did not hear anything further from the RRC regarding the fate of his application.
2.5. He submitted a representation dated 9.12.2013 to the Sr. Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, RRC but has not received any reply to the same.
The arguments advanced by the applicant in support of his claim in his Original Application are summarized as under:-
3.1. As directed by the Sr. Personnel Officer on 26.3.2013, he appeared before the said officer for document verification etc. on 11.4.2013.
3.2. He was interrogated by the competent authority and he satisfactory replied to the question asked to him.
3.3. His documents were also verified and he was informed that he would get a call letter for his medical examination shortly. However, he did not hear anything further from RRC, Eastern Railway. He followed up the matter by personal visits to RRC, Eastern Railway and was assured that a communication would be sent to him.
3.4. Further, on the verbal advice made to him, he submitted a representation stating the facts of the matter to the RRC. Despite waiting for months together following the verification of the original documents on 11.4.2013, he has neither been called for document verification nor has been informed of any mistake committed by Vee, 5 9.a. 3387/2016 him. Meanwhile, the respondents have already taken steps to fill up Gr. 'D' posts in terms of another vacancy notification of 2012.
3.5. His presence as a candidate in the examination hall for the written test was verified with the photographs taken in the examination hall and his participation at PET was also verified with the video recording.
3.6. Due to mis-match of handwriting with the application form /OMRSheet/Declaration Form of the candidate with his answer script, the candidate was directed to report before the Sr. Personnel Officer (Rectt) at the RRC, Eastern Railway Office on 11.4.2013.
3.7. On the report of the forensic expert it was established that the applicant had misrepresented and he was thereby not empanelled for appointment.
3.8. The status of the applicant was thereafter communicated through the official website of the RRC i.e. www.rrcer.com. The Railway reserves the right to examine the handwriting and LTI of the candidate by a Railway empanelled ex-Govt. Examiner of Questioned document (GEQD)/LTI expert.
3.9. The candidature of the applicant has, therefore, been rejected on valid and substantial ground of mismatch of his signature with the application form/OMR/ declaration.
3.10. The applicant was provided with an opportunity to cross- examine the dissimilarity, mismatch established by the experts and to put forth his views.
The applicant, in his rejoinder, has submitted the following:-
4.1. Every step in the recruitment process right from the written test onwards has been videographed and moreover the
--
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
6 0.a. 3387/2016photographs on the call letters of the applicant, signatures and handwriting were also verified by the authorities.
The verification of his signature was made by the examiner of documents by one Shri Anand Swaroop Gupta, who has given his opinion on the same while the said expert did not allow the applicant to raise any query/question or to cross-examine him during the said examination of documents. Hence, it is doubtful whether the opinion can be of the said expert, who being a retired Govt. officer would be accepted as final.
He was called only once and no cross-examination was allowed.
In the check list issued by the expert answer to question "signature in original application, OMR and declaration form is matching as per verification report." The answer is yes and hence there is no possibility of any impersonation.
While on certain other occasions documents were sent for examination to Hyderabad but in his case only the opinion of the retired officer was taken which cannot be taken as final and acceptable in the eye of law.
The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WPCT No. 467 of 2012 has directed, inter alia, as follows:-
"The perusal of the records would demonstrate that in a sizable number of cases the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of expert opinion, regarding the alleged mismatch of the applicant's signature and observed that opportunity should be given to the applicant to cross examine the experts. Hence, in the factual matrix of this case also we are of the view that the applicant cannot be singled out and he should also be treated like others. In the meantime, we are of the considered opinion that if there is any practical difficulty in securing the present of the experts for cross examination then as suggested by the learned counsel for the Respondents, the Railway authority is at liberty to get the disputed signature/signatures compared with the admitted and a 7 0.a. 387/2016 antiti tum motum signatures of the applicant by an expert and after getting opinion from him, if it is found that it was adverse to the applicant a copy of the same be served on him and opportunity be given to him to file his objection and cross examine the expert."
4.7. The applicant was not provided any opportunity to cross- examine the expert, and, therefore, denied natural justice.
3. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and examined the material on record. During hearing, the Ld. Counsels have reiterated the arguments already made in their respective pleadings.
6. The Railway authorities are well within their rights to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the applicant. They have to satisfy themselves that no impersonation or any malpractices have taken place during course of the examination. As such, the respondents were perfectly justified in calling the applicant to their office for verifying his signature with the help of an expert. However, the respondents should have got the handwriting of the applicant examined by an agency of the Government examiner i.e. either the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents or Central Forensic Laboratory. Instead they had taken the help of a retired officer of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents.
7. In such matters, it is essential that opinion be obtained from only government agency.
8. Further, the respondent authorities have claimed that the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the expert examiner. The applicant has in his rejoinder contended that he was not provided any such opportunity. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has directed that such opportunity to cross-examine be provided to the applicant.
Moreover, this is in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
--O 8 0.a. 387/2016
9. In view of the above, we find that there is a procedural lapse on the part of the Railway authorities in so far as they did not get the handwriting of the applicant verified by a government agency. Had they done so, such information would have been considered to be final.
10. Although this is a very old matter, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the handwriting of the applicant is verified by a Government agency such as the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents or CFSL by following the prescribed procedure. After obtaining an opinion of such experts, the respondents may take a final decision on the candidature of the applicant.
The applicant should be informed of the decision taken in this case within two months.
11. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. aA Y a (Anindo Majumdar) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sp