Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Vigan Kumar Alias Bigan Kumar vs Railway on 15 January, 2026
1 OA N0. 561 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00561/2017
Reserved on: 12.12.2025.
Pronounced on: 15.01.2026.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Vigan Kumar alias Bigan Kumar son of Sri Shivji Manjhi resident of
village- Mangolpar P.O. Shinghwalia P.S- Mahammadpur Distt. -
Gopalganj.
....... Applicant.
- By Advocate(s): - Shri Vivekanand Vivek.
-Versus-
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi.
2. The General manager, North Eastern Railway, at Gorakhpur.
273001.
3. The Divisional Rail Manager (Personal) North Eastern Railway.
Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 221001.
4. The Divisional Rail Manager (Eng) Varanasi. 221001.
5. The Chief Section Engineer, Pve. N.E, Railway, Varanasi 221001.
6. Assistant Divisional Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Chhapra.
841301.
7. Mr Vijay Bahadur Singh, Headmaster in Charge, Government
Madhya Vidyalaya, Jhajhwa, Singhwalia Dist- Gopalganj.
841428.
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri R.R. Singh, ld. ASC.
ORDER
Per Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Member (J) :- Present OA has been filed by the applicant for the following relief:-
"(1. To quash the Letter No-687 dated 20.8.2016 contained in Annexure- A-9 as well as Letter No- 5/1-5/settlement/Singh dated 28.9.2016 contained in Annexure- 10 of the application which was passed against the Article- 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India and in violation of Rules of natural justice.
ii. To reinstate the service of the applicant with effect from the date of removal from service i.e. 3-10-2016 with all consequential benefits.
BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD
2 OA N0. 561 of 2017 iii. To direct the respondent not to file any criminal case against the applicant on the basis of ex parte decision taken by the respondent. iv. To quash the order of recovery of amount contained in Annexure- A-9 and A-10 which was paid on account of work discharged on duty. i. To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the applicant is entitled in accordance with law."
2. The factual matrix as argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that father of the applicant was a railway employee and he was posted on the post of Trackman. He was voluntarily retired on 30.06.2015.
3. It has further been stated by the applicant that under LARSGESS scheme, the railway authority-initiated process for the appointment of ward of railway employee on account of their voluntarily retirement. Accordingly, father of the applicant proposed for appointment of his son on any post under the LARSGESS scheme. The father of the applicant was informed by letter dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure-A/1) issued by Asst. Divisional Engineer, Chhapra intimating that Chhan Examination is going to be conducted on 02.03.2015 in the office of D.R.M (Personal), Varanasi and directed his son to reach there along with photographs and relevant educational certificates etc. Applicant appeared in the examination on scheduled date and he was declared successful vide list dated 27.03.2015 of successful candidates (Annexure-A/2). The name of the applicant figured at Sl. No.55 for the post of Trackman. Thereafter, medical examination for fitness of applicant was directed to be conducted as per Annexure-A/3. Applicant was submitted required certificates/documents as demanded by the respondents on 05.05.2015 as per Annexure-A/4. Applicant was declared medically fit on 06.05.2015 (Annexure-A/5). After BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 3 OA N0. 561 of 2017 completing all the formalities applicant was recommended for appointment under LARSGESS and his name was forwarded for further action vide Letter No.5/1-5/Set/Singwalia dated 27.06.2015 issued by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra (Annexure-A/6).
4. It has been further stated by the applicant that vide office order No. 44/15 DRM (Per), Varanasi dated 1.7.2015 issued by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra, the applicant was appointed on the post of Track maintainer- IV and he was found fit for A-3 post. The name of the applicant appeared at serial No- 9 of the list. He was posted at Singhwalia. (Annexure-A/7). Applicant submitted his joining on 02.07.2015 to the Senior Section Engineer, P.Ve, N.E. Railway, Singhwalia (Annexure-A/8).
5. It has been further stated by the applicant that vide Letter No. 687 dated 20.8.16, (Annexure-A/10) the Asst. Divisional Engineer, Chhapra informed to C. Section Engineer P.ve, N.E Railway Singhwalia that Transfer Certificate issued by Government Madhya Vidyalaya. Jhajhwa was verified by District Education Officer, Gopalganj and the same was declared to be forged by the Headmaster of the school, accordingly the applicant was removed from service and further ordered to lodge a criminal case against the applicant and recover the amount paid in lieu of salary given him. Accordingly, applicant was removed from service vide letter dated 28.09.2016 and also directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,077/- in the office of Asst. Divisional Engineer, Chhapra due to loss caused to the railway. (Annexure-A/10). BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 4 OA N0. 561 of 2017
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and violation of Rules of natural justice as no opportunity and show cause was given to the applicant to defend himself before removal from the service.
7. It is further stated by the applicant that the respondent has removed the applicant from service only on the ground that Transfer Certificate issued by the school has been found forged. It has also been submitted by the applicant that his date of birth and document is genuine. As he inquired from the school authority, he has been informed by the school that certificate is genuine, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, I/C Headmaster of the said school has issued and put his Signature on the Transfer Certificate at the time of issuing certificate. The date of birth of the applicant and transfer certificate is genuine. Therefore, certificate issued by him be accepted.
8. It has further been stated by the applicant that despite having genuine certificate obtained from the school Headmaster in-charge, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, the applicant has been removed from service without affording any opportunity & issuing show cause notice simply on the ground of putting illegal and arbitrary condition in the letter of appointment which is violative of Article 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India as well as rules of natural justice. Learned Counsel has further stated that the applicant has been appointed being the ward of the railway employee who took voluntary retirement for appointment BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 5 OA N0. 561 of 2017 of his son under LARSGESS scheme so it is not a case of appointment under regular recruitment. He requests to allow the O.A.
9. Respondents have filed their Written Statement. It has been submitted by the respondents that applicant has not exhausted statutory remedy against the impugned orders Annexure A/9 and A/10 under Section 20 of the A. T. Act, whereas he had to first prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, O.A. is not maintainable as held in the case of the Union of India & others vs B. P. Patnaik reported in 2016(3) PLJR 556.
10. It has further been stated by the respondents that the applicant himself submitted a Notarized Affidavit at the time of verification of all certificates, in para 5 of Notarized Affidavit dated 05.05.2015 it has been stated that if my Character Certificate, Caste Certificate and educational certificate finds forged /illegal, in that situation my services can be terminated with immediate effect without giving ant notice. Applicant will be liable for punishment under the Provision of Indian Penal Code due to the reason that he has cheated to railway authorities. It is also submitted that removal order dated 20.08.2016 (Annexure 9) had been issued due to liberty granted in para 5 of the Notarized affidavit application dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure - 4).
11. It has also been stated by the respondents that removal order against the applicant has been passed after receipt of letter of the Head Master of the said school and no any enquiry was required in this regard.
BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 6 OA N0. 561 of 2017
12. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Vivekanand and Mr. R.R. Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Parties and perused the record.
13. The record indicates that under the LARSGESS Scheme after the voluntary retirement of Shri Shivji Manjhi, the father of the applicant, the name of the applicant was proposed for appointment and accordingly, the required examination was conducted by the authority on 02.03.2015. The applicant appeared in the examination and was declared successful with other candidates vide declaration of result dated 27.03.2015. Thereafter, medical test of successful candidates was conducted by the Railway Hospital in which the applicant was found fit for the service. The applicant had also submitted an affidavit to Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi stating that the applicant has perused all the rules and regulations regarding his appointment and he has submitted his Class-8 passed certificate, caste certificate, residence certificate as well as character certificate. It has also been declared by the deponent that if any certificate submitted by him is found forged then his services may be terminated without any prior notice and he shall also be liable for prosecution under provisions of I.P.C.
14. Consequent upon to above, the name of applicant along with all other candidates was recommended for appointment under LARSGESS Scheme and recommendation was forwarded for further action vide letter No. 5/1-5/Set/Singhwalia dated 27.06.2015. The authorities BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 7 OA N0. 561 of 2017 approved the above recommendation and they issued the office order No. 44/15 DRM (Per) dated 01.07.2015 by which the applicant was given employment in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440/- and was posted at Singhwalia. In view of the above Office Order, the applicant submitted his joining to Senior Section Engineer, P.Ve. N.E., Railway, Singhwalia on 02.07.2015.
15. On 20.08.2016, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra sent a letter to C. Section Engineer, P.Ve, N.E. Railway, Singhwalia with a contention that Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Madhya Vidyalaya, Jhajhwa was sent for verification to District Education Officer, Gopalganj and Headmaster of the aforesaid school has declared the T.C. submitted by the applicant was forged. Therefore, the applicant has been removed from his service with immediate effect. It has also been mentioned in the above letter that a criminal case be lodged against the applicant for the above forged act and the amount which had been paid to the applicant by way of salary shall also be recovered.
16. In pursuance of the above, C Section Engineer (Pve) Singhwalia informed the applicant vide letter dated 28.09.2016 that since the applicant has submitted forged certificates, hence, he has been removed from railway service as well as he was further directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,077/-, the amount which has been received by way of his salary from July, 2015 to August 2016, just to compensate the loss of railway.
17. In the above reference, it has been mentioned by the counsel for the applicant that no opportunity or show cause notice was asked from BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 8 OA N0. 561 of 2017 the applicant for his removal from service. The applicant personally made an enquiry from school authority who disclosed that certificate is genuine. He submitted that all documents are genuine but no proper enquiry has been conducted by the Opposite Parties which is complete violation of principle of natural justice. It has also been submitted by the applicant that after declared successful in the examination conducted by the Opposite Parties and according to the order of the Opposite Parties as per Rule after examining his documents, he was given appointment and after appointment, the applicant had discharged his duties honestly and sincerely. The money that has been demanded and ordered by the Opposite Parties is the part of his salary in consideration of the work done by the applicant. All the alleged inquiry has been done behind the back of the applicant and without providing any opportunity against the alleged submission of forged certificate. It is also illegal that applicant is liable for prosecution under I.P.C. Hence, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice. Letter dated 20.08.2016 issued by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra (Annexure-9) and letter dated 28.09.2016 issued by C Engineer (Pve) Singhwalia (Annexure-10) both have been challenged by the applicant by way of the present OA.
18. In reply, by way of Written Statement, it has been mentioned by the Opposite Parties that applicant has himself submitted a Notarized Affidavit, dated 05.05.2015 at the time of verification of all certificates and in Para-5 of Notarized Affidavit he has clearly stated that if his certificates found forged/illegal in that situation his services can be BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 9 OA N0. 561 of 2017 terminated with immediate effect without any notice and deponent is also liable for punishment for prosecution under I.P.C. The removal order had been issued due to liberty granted by the applicant himself in Notarized Affidavit. The applicant has filed the present O.A. without preferring Appeal before the competent authority.
19. It has also been mentioned by the counsel for the Opposite Parties that during the course of enquiry, on receipt of letter of headmaster of the said school, the competent authority has left no option except to believe the averments made in said letter and even the inquiry was not necessary, hence the removal order of the applicant had been passed by the authority. As the applicant has submitted forged certificate, therefore, no benefit will be given to him. Due to aforesaid act of forgery, the applicant has been removed from service and as a consequence, the applicant is liable to refund the amount which has been given to him and for the above offence of cheating, applicant is also liable to undergo criminal prosecution. The order regarding refund of the salary is in accordance with Rules of railway.
20. Nowhere, it has been mentioned either by the applicant or by the Opposite Parties that the applicant at the time of his removal from service was under probation.
21. The applicant was given appointment by the Opposite Parties on 01.07.2015 which is proved by Office Order No. 44/15 DRM (Per) (Annexure-7). Annexue-2 is the declaration of result of examination BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 10 OA N0. 561 of 2017 which was conducted by the authorities on 02.03.2025 and 03.03.2015. In the foot of the said Office Order, it is mentioned that-
"नोट: मद सं0-(B) के .सं. 65 पर ी रामबचन यादव, हे . खलासी/िसगनल/गोरखपुर की सेवा अिभलेख लेखा िवभाग के िवधी ण के शताधीन है , को अनं म प से नािमका म रखा गया है ।
उपरो अ िथयों का नाम कमचा रयों के डीएआर/एसपीई/िविजलस ीयरस के शत के अधीन है । िनयु दे ने से पूव अ िथयों की शै िणक यो ता िवशेष प से हाई ू ल उ ीण अ थ के मामले म हाई ू ल एवं क ा-8 उ ीण अ थ के मामले म क ा-8 के माण-प की पुि अव करा ली जाय ।
उपरो अन म नािमका पर िदनांक 27.03.2015 को मरे महोदय का अनुमोदन ा है ।"
Therefore, by the wordings of the above note, it is clear that before giving the appointment the Opposite Parties had verified the documents submitted by the applicant in respect of his educational qualification. The inference can be drawn in the light of fact that applicant was declared successful in examination on 27.03.2015 whereas he was given appointment on 01.07.2015, i.e. approximately after three months which was sufficient time for verification of the documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant was removed from his service vide order dated 28.09.2016 after more than one year of his service. Once, the applicant has been given an appointment in government service and on completion of his successful duties for more than one year, in our view, a legal right accrues in favour of the applicant that he should not be removed from his service without proper enquiry.
22. Article 311 (1)(2) of the Constitution of India makes the provision that no such employee of union service shall be removed from BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 11 OA N0. 561 of 2017 his service without inquiry in accordance with law. Admittedly, no such inquiry has been done by the Opposite Parties in present case. Opposite Parties has not submitted any inquiry report/letter of headmaster of the school from where applicant had completed his education. The Opposite Parties has also not verified that what was the entries in the concerned school register and whether the signing authority of letter had made any entry in the concerned register, whether his signature on the T.C./documents was forged or genuine, whether any manipulation has been found in the register or whether any other entry has been found in the register on that serial number, or there was any irregularity in the dispatch register.
23. By way of removal from servicer, the authority has deprived the applicant from his livelihood. Therefore, without proper enquiry/scrutiny on the point of forgery, the inference of forgery as well as removal of applicant from service is not in accordance with principles of natural justice. Even, the authority has not given any opportunity to applicant to explain/show cause the alleged act of forgery.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Girotra VS. United Commercial Bank, 1995 SUPP. (3) SCC 112 has held that author of the document has to be examined and cross-examined by the applicant.
It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank 2009 (2) SCC 570 that BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 12 OA N0. 561 of 2017 examination and cross-examination of the witness of author of certificate/documents is mandatory.
24. Apart from that, no memorandum of charge against the applicant has been issued in the course of any departmental inquiry. Needless to say, that along with memorandum of charge, statement of imputation and list of witness are also mandatory part of inquiry which has not been followed by the authorities concerned.
25. Although, the applicant had given an affidavit that in case his documents which were submitted by him to respondent authorities is found forged he shall be liable for removal from service but the above acceptance/consent is always subject to proof of forged documents in accordance with the mandates of constitutional provisions and principle of natural justice.
26. We have also considered that the Opposite Parties neither pleaded nor produced any documents that whether they have lodged any criminal prosecution against the applicant for his alleged act of forgery.
27. As far as the order of repayment of Rs. 2,00,077/- is concerned, the amount has been paid to applicant in lieu of his salary in consideration of his work done under employment, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has embezzled any money of railway department, hence the order for refund of aforesaid amount is also not in accordance with law.
BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 13 OA N0. 561 of 2017
28. So far as the contentions of the counsel for Opposite Parties that applicant has not taken recourse of Appeal and directly filed the instant O.A., learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 02.11.2017 when the O.A. was filed by the counsel for the applicant and was put up before the Tribunal for taking cognizance, at that time, learned counsel had mentioned that in the case, the question of recovery of huge amount is concerned and Appellate Authority has no power to stay the operation of the impugned orders, therefore, the applicant was compelled to file the O.A. On the above request the Tribunal took the cognizance of grievance of applicant and issued notice to Opposite Parties vide order dated 02.11.2017, although, despite the request, the Tribunal has not granted interim relief at that time. Further vide order dated 25.09.2024 O.A. has been admitted for final hearing. The above orders have not been challenged by the Opposite Parties at that time, therefore, at this stage, counsel for the Opposite Parties cannot object regarding maintainability of the present O.A. The submissions of the counsel for the applicant seems to be forceful.
29. The Opposite Parties are always in liberty to initiate the departmental inquiry regarding alleged act of forgery in accordance with law as well as principle of natural justice. In that case, an opportunity/show cause/explanation etc. shall also be given to the applicant.
30. Having considered the pleadings, documents available on record, submissions of counsels for both the sides, the Tribunal is of considered BINAYDigitally PRAS signed BINAY by AD PRASAD 14 OA N0. 561 of 2017 view that order dated 20.08.2016 for removal of applicant from service which was issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra and letter dated 28.09.2016 which was issued by the C Section Engineer (Pve) Singhwalia are against the provisions of law and norms of principle of natural justice. Hence, both the letters are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, letter dated 20.08.2016 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Chhapra and letter dated 28.09.2016 issued by the C Section Engineer (Pve) Singhwalia are hereby quashed and set aside.
31. The O.A. is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to re-instate the applicant with all consequential reliefs to be decided by the Opposites Parties as per law and procedure for the intervening period, i.e. from the date of dismissal to re-instatement.
32. The Opposite Parties are at liberty to initiate and complete the proper inquiry against the applicant according to settled law.
33. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(J)
BP.
BINAYDigitally
PRAS signed
BINAY
by
AD PRASAD