Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Abinash Kumar vs Rrb (E Railway) on 17 August, 2023
2 OA 442/2017 ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a) A direction may be given upon the respondents their officers men and agents and each of them to issue appointment letter to the applicant to the post of Technicial Gr. Hl on the basis of the written examination held on 13.07.2014 and selection forthwith by quashing the purported letter no.
RRB/MLDT/Cat.01/CEN.01/2014 dated 08.02.2017 issued by the Chairman Railway Recruitment Board, Malda as well as the report of the hand writing expert shown in letter dated 20.10.2016;
b) A direction may be given upon the respondents, their officers, men and agents and each of them to show cause as to why they should not be directed to issue the appointment letter to the applicant being the selected candidate in the due process of law by quashing the purported cancellation of the candidature of the applicant vide no. RRB/MLDT/Cat.01/CEN.01/2014 dated 08.02.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2 on the basis of the purported report of the hand writing expert mentioned-in the show cause dated 20.10.2016 issued by the respondent no. 4;
¢) To pass such other or further order or orders as to the Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
Z. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
24 Railway Recruitment Board, Malda issued a Notice for recruitment in several posts including the post of Technician Gr. III Fitter, C & W and the applicant applied for the post of Technician Gr. III Fitter, C & W.
2.2 The applicant appeared in the said examination held on 13.07.2014. The applicant being a successful empanelled candidate received a letter dated 20.10.2015 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Malda by which he was directed to appear on 24.12.2015 for verification of original certificates and other documents. After completion of certificate verification, the applicant received a "Show Cause" notice dated 20.10.2016 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Malda with allegations that the persons who attended the written examination was not the same person who submitted the original 3 OA 442/2017 application form and appeared in person during document and candidature verification on 29.12.2015. The applicant was directed to submit 'Reply' to the said "show cause" notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice.
2.3 The applicant replied to the same on 05.11.2016 denying all the allegations. Thereafter, the applicant received a letter dated 08.02.2017 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Malda by which his candidature was cancelled and was debarred for life to appear in all RRB examination. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the applicant has filed the present original application.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the identity of the applicant was verified by the respondents at the time of written examination. . Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to claim that the person who appeared in the written test is different from the person who reported for document verification.
3.1, Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the handwriting of the applicant was compared two years apart. The authorities have not considered the explanation of the applicant that he was nervous at the time of document verification due to some mental issues and his handwriting at the time of document verification was different from his handwriting at the time of written test. His candidature should not have been rejected merely on the basis of alleged mismatch in handwriting without matching his thumb impression which was also taken, both at the time of written test and during document verification. Learned Counsel submits that thumb impression is a unique characteristic of an individual which remains constant whereas 4 OA 442/2017 handwriting of the same individual may change depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time and also on the time gap between the two samples.
3.2 Learned Counsel argues that rejection of the applicant's candidature and debarring him for life from participating in any selection conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board cannot be sustained and should be quashed.
4. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents, relying on the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, argues that the documents containing the
4) applicant's handwriting submitted at the time of document verification when compared with his answer sheet of the written examination gave rise to serious doubts that the person who appeared in the written examination may have impersonated the applicant. As per rules, all the documents were sent to an empanelled expert who is an ex-GEQD who, after examination of the documents, opined that the person who wrote the examination was not the same as who came for document verification. Based on this opinion of empanelled handwriting expert, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant whose explanation was not found satisfactory by the competent authority and the applicant's candidature was rejected and he was debarred for life from participating in any RRB selection in future. 4.1 The respondents submit that the case of the applicant was handled strictly as.per procedure and the applicant was given the opportunity to submit his explanation which was taken into consideration before rejecting his candidature.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that the claim of the applicant that his handwriting at the time of document verification may have © 5 OA 442/2017 differed from his handwriting in. the written examination because of hervousness arising out of mental problems faced by the applicant, may render the applicant medically unfit for holding the post of Technician in the _ Railways.
5. Heard the parties at length. Perused materials on record.
- 5.4 In this matter, we are guided by the judgment of this Tribunal in OA no. 350/0387/2016 delivered on 16.05.2023 where the circumstances of the case and the issue under adjudication are materially identical to those in the \ instant case. In both the cases the candidature of the applicant were rejected after obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert not belonging to any Government agency but who is an ex-GEQD. In OA no. 350/0387/2016, this Tribunal has held as follows :-
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.
Sea eee ses ena css ore ese ese neater Teese eebannere tttees cede 5.2 We are inclined to take the same view as in OA no. 350/0387/2016 considering the parity in the cases.-We, therefore, direct the respondents to get the handwriting of the applicant verified by a Government agency such as the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents or CFSL by following the ke.
- r.
6 . OA 442/2017 prescribed procedure. After obtaining the 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 his case, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents in their office.
6. With these directions, OA stands disposed of. No costs. ~ (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Judicial Member