Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Bishnu Prasad Patalsingh vs East Coast Railway on 8 January, 2026
1 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.Nos. 260/00289 & 290 of 2025
Reserved on 17.12.2025 Pronounced on 08.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
O.A.No. 260/00289/2025
Sarat Kumar Sahoo, aged about 51 years, Son of
Sadasiva Sahoo, presently residing at
Wilksshon Nagar, PO. Gurujanga, Dist. Khorda-
752 055.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1) Union of India represented through its
General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Chandrasekhaprur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khordha, 751017.
2) Chief Personnel Office, East Coast Railway,
Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha, 751017.
3) Divisional Railway Manager, E.Co.Railway,
Khurda Road, PO. Jatni, Dist. Khordha,
752050.
4) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
E.Co.Railway, Khordha Road, PO. Jatni, Dist.
Khordha, 752050.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.K.Pardhi, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.08
09:51:57 +05'30'
2 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025
O.A.No. 260/00290/2025
Bishnu Prasad Patalsingh, aged about 42 years,
Son of Sri B.K.Patalsingh, At- Naranakheta, PO.
Kanti, Dist. Puri.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1) Union of India represented through its
General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Chandrasekhaprur, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khordha, 751017.
2) Chief Personnel Office, East Coast Railway,
Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha, 751017.
3) Divisional Railway Manager, E.Co.Railway,
Khurda Road, PO. Jatni, Dist. Khordha,
752050.
4) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
E.Co.Railway, Khordha Road, PO. Jatni, Dist.
Khordha, 752050.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.K.Rath, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The facts and issues involved in both the OAs being found same and similar to each other, albeit we have heard the matters one after the other, this common order would govern both the cases.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 3 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025
2. Earlier, both the applicants filed OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 stating inter alia that they were selected for the post of Gangman/Gr. D in Railways pursuant to Employment Notification No.1/98. But, they could not be appointed on the ground of mismatch of LTI in the attendance sheet for written test and in course of verification. In the said circumstances, FIRs were lodged before the concerned police station by the Respondent-Railway, which were registered as GR Case No. 621/2009 before the Learned JMFC (O), Bhubaneswar. Since, their names did not appear in the charge sheet filed by the Police in the said GR case, both of them, submitted representations praying for their appointment. Thereafter, they approached this Bench by filing OAs, which were disposed of with direction to the Respondent-Railways to consider and dispose of their representations. Respondent-Railway in letter dated 27.04.2016 intimated that their cases will be considered on the basis of report from GEQD and final outcome of GR Case No. 621/2009.
3. The Respondent-Railway filed protest petition, which was registered as ICC Case No. 1906 of 2017. The Learned JMFC (O), RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 4 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 BBSR passed order dated 12.02.2018 for taking cognizance of offences under section 419/468/465/420/34 of Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the applicants, against which order, the applicants filed CRLMC No. 3422 of 2018 & CRLMC No. 3430 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and the order dated 12.02.2018 of the Learned JMFC (O), BBSR was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 24.06.2019. Thereafter, the applicants filed OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 praying direction to the respondents to appoint them in the post of Gangman/Gr. D. Respondents contested the case of the applicant in OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 stating that the original documents containing their signatures and LTIs were seized by the Police in connection with the GR cases and the same had not been returned so as to send the same to Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) for verification and report. It was also stated that they have filed IA No. 1863 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa seeking recalling of order dated 24.06.2019 in CRLMC No. 3422 of 2018 & CRLMC No. 3430 of 2018. Accordingly, it was stated that since the doubt of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 5 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 impersonation is yet to be eradicated, in absence of any report/opinion from GEQD on tainted LTI of applicants and pendency of the IA, the applicants are not entitled to the relief claimed in both the OAs.
4. After due discussions, deliberations and analyzation of the facts and issues involved in both the OAs, this Bench disposed of both the OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 in a common order dated 23.12.2022 with observations and directions as under:
"4. Considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. It is seen that the present cases are having a checkered career of its own and, according to the Respondents, as the original records containing the LTIs of applicants were seized by the police in connection with criminal case and have not been returned, the same have not been verified from GEQD and they have filed IA No. 1863 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa seeking recalling the order dated 24.06.2019 in CRLMC No. 3422 of 2018 & CRLMC No. 3430 of 20918 and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the relief claimed in this O.A. On the other hand it is the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants that as the criminal case instituted against the applicants have been quashed delay defeats justice to the Applicants, and, therefore, they are entitled to be appointed. At this stage, this Tribunal is reminded by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post. Though the candidate was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person with such RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 6 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 record the said decision cannot be said to be unwarranted as discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences is hardly of any importance and suffice to quote the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors v Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 & Satish Chandra Yadav vs Union of India & Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300. In the peculiar facts and circumstances stated above, both the OAs are disposed of with direction to the Respondents to consider/reconsider the case of the Applicants keeping in mind the facts and law discussed above and communicate the decision to the Applicants in a well reasoned/speaking order within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
(Emphasis added)
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants filed Review Applications stating that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Chief Secretary & Ors Vs Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 & Satish Chandra Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300, were not placed by any of the parties and, therefore, the Tribunal committed error in placing reliance on those decisions without giving any opportunity to the applicants. However, during pendency of the RAs, upon reconsideration of the case of the applicants, in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Bench dated 23.11.2022 in OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016, the respondents intimated the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 7 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 applicants in letter dated 13.03.2023; relevant portion of which is as under:
"Since the allegation of impersonation is yet to be eradicated in absence of any report/opinion from GEQD on tainted LTI of the Applicant and during the pendency of the IA, the Applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the OA. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments, verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post. Though the candidate was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected on account of his antecedent records, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint. Appointment can only be considered on full establishment of the genuineness of the candidature in all respects, which is not yet complete in the present case."
6. Both the RAs were dismissed on 29.01.2025. Thereafter, the applicants filed the present OA Nos. 298 and 290 of 2025 on 03.07.2025 praying to direct the respondents to appoint them in Group-D/Gangman forthwith pursuant to E.No.1/98 by quashing the orders of rejection dated 13.03.2023.
7. Respondents filed their counter stating that on the face of the earlier decisions of this Bench, there remains nothing further to be adjudicated in the present OAs, which is nothing but reiteration of the old and obsolete facts and grounds of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 8 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 earlier OAs and, therefore, according to them this OA is hit by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata. They have also stated that in this OA filed on 03.07.2025, they have prayed to quash the order dated 13.03.2023 and, thus, this OA is also hit by the law of limitation/Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985. They have also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs Emerald Court Owner RWA, 2024 (1) SCC LS 819, wherein it was held that relitigation over same and similar issue is bad under law.
8. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, it is stated that the names of the applicants were included in the waiting list after deletion of non-reporting candidates. The discrepancies in the LTIs of both the applicants having come to the notice during verification, the same was verified by the competent verification committee and recorded in the official proceedings and, therefore, the appointment to the applicants was withheld. However, it has been stated that the IA filed by the respondents department arising out of the CRLMC No. 3422/2018 has meantime disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 9 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 respondents department in letter dated 22.10.2025 requested the concerned police authority to return the original documents containing the LTI and signature of the applicants, which were seized in connection with the criminal case instituted against them, for the purpose of sending the same to GEQD for verification. In turn, the police authority intimated in letter dated 23.10.2025 and letter dated 28.10.2025 that those records are not available in the police station since the same were already produced along with the chargesheet before the Learned JMFC(O), BBSR. In the above circumstances, the examination by the GEQD could not be ascertained though the discrepancy was found by the committee in course of verification of LTIs/documents. In this regard, the respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs UOI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300, to state that there is no injustice caused to the applicants in the decision making process of the matter since a candidate even after selection or exoneration, the appointing authority can still decline appointment if doubts on identity or antecedents of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 10 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 candidate persists. In the instant case, since the LTI of both the applicants were found mismatched, denial of appointment or rejection of their candidature cannot be unjustified. There is no illegality in denying employment to the applicants when there LTIs were found mismatched since it is the settled law in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, wherein it was held that employer is entitled to judge the desirability of a candidate in public employment even if criminal proceedings ended in acquittal/quashment. In support of the stand that appointing authority is not bound to appoint a candidate if there are unresolved doubts regarding identity, integrity or verification of credentials, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605. They have also relied on few more decisions in support of their stand of dismissal of this OA by stating that inclusion of name in a panel does not confer any vested right on the candidate to seek appointment- Shankarsan Dash Vs UOI, (1991) 3 SCC 47; discretion relating to suitability and desirability for appointment RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 11 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 of a candidate lie within the domain of the appointing authority and court and tribunal cannot interfere on the same unless it is established that the said decision is arbitrary- UOI Vs Kali Dass Barish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 and the impersonation, forgery and biometric/document mismatch when established by independent expert or committee and disqualifies a candidate on said ground, no relief can be granted unless conclusion verification was positive- Ram Karan Vs Ministry of Railways, CAT, 2018. Accordingly, respondents have prayed that these OAs being hit by the principle of res judicata, limitation besides meritless are liable to be dismissed.
9. Mr. D.P.Dhalsamant, Ld. Counsel for the applicants, insofar as the point raised by the respondents relating to res judicata is concerned, has submitted that OA No. 359 and 360 of 2016 were disposed of by this Bench with direction to the Respondents "to consider/reconsider the case of the Applicants keeping in mind the facts and law discussed above and communicate the decision to the Applicants in a well reasoned/speaking order within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of copy of this RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 12 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 order." By this order, it cannot be said that the right of the applicants to reagitate their grievance when the final outcome of reconsideration went against their interest was closed. Therefore, by the impugned order, the applicants have got a fresh cause of action to challenge, which they did in this OA. Therefore, the point of res judicata raised by the respondents is misnomer. Similarly, relating to the point of limitation raised by the respondents is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondents reconsidered the case of the applicants as per the order of this Bench in OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016 and rejected their claim for appointment vide letter dated 13.03.2023 during the pendency of Review Application seeking review of the order in OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016. The RA 2/2023 was dismissed by this Bench on 29.01.2025 and, thereafter, the applicants filed the present OAs within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 and, in the circumstances, according to Ld. Counsel for the applicants there is no delay.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 13 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025
10. Similarly, by taking us through the pleadings and documents filed in support of the relief, Mr. Dhalsamant, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that in earlier OA No. 21/2006, this Bench vide order dated 16.03.2009 directed that the signature and LTI may be sent to GEQD/handwriting expert and, based on the opinion of the experts, take further action in the matter. There being no progress, again the applicant filed OA No. 274/2009, which was disposed of on 14.03.2012 directing the respondents to take action as per the earlier order dated 16.03.2009 in OA 21/2006 depending on the final outcome of the GR Case. The GR case ultimately ended in favour of the applicants by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 24.06.2019 in CRLMC No. 3422 of 2018 & CRLMC No. 3430 of 2018. The State Fingerprint Bureau, Orissa, Bhubaneswar submitted report holding that the LTIs of both the applicants tallied with the LTIs taken in attendance sheet at the time of written examination and taken during verification of documents; which report was submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in CRLMC No. 811/2012 by the Railway, copy of which has RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 14 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 also been furnished by the applicant in course of hearing and kept in the record. The respondents taken the stand that they had filed IA No. 1483/2019 seeking modification/review of the order dated 24.06.2019, which has meanwhile been dismissed. In the above circumstances, according to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, rejection of the prayer of the applicants for appointment is bad in law.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents taking us through the pleadings and note of submission has submitted that on 05.11.1998 notification was issued for recruitment. On 02.11.2003, written examination was conducted. On 24.12.2005, applicants were called for document verification, which was stopped after being noticed discrepancies in the initial screening. In compliance of the order of this Bench in OA No. 440/2006, on 27.08.2008 applicants were directed to appear for fresh verification. On 02.09.2008, they appeared and their thumb impressions were also taken. On 13.03.2009 due to mismatch of LTIs, FIR was lodged against the applicants. On 22.06.2010, the State Fingerprint Bureau of Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar took the RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 15 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 LTIs and RTI samples of the applicants for expert examination. On 24.07.2010, the expert examination concluded that the fingerprints match contradicting earlier opinion of Chief Fingerprint Inspector, Khurda Road Division, who had opined of mismatch. OA No. 274/2009 was disposed on 14.03.2012 with direction to take action as per the order dated 16.03.2009 in OA No. 21/2006 depending upon the final outcome of GR Case. On 29.07.2015 charge sheet was filed in criminal case. OA No. 82/2016 was disposed of on 16.02.2016 with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants in the light of the orders passed in OA No. 274/2009. The respondents considered the representation and intimated that their cases will be considered on the basis of the report of the GEQD and final outcome of GR Case. On 12.02.2018, the Learned JFMC (O), Bhubaneswar taken cognizance against the applicants. The said order dated 12.02.2018 was challenged by the applicants in CRLMC before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa quashed the order dated 12.02.2018 of Learned JMCF vide order dated 24.06.2019. OA RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 16 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016, which were filed by the applicants and pending before this Bench on 23.12.2022 with direction to consider/reconsider the case of the applicant keeping in mind the facts and law noted in the said order. On 13.03.2023, respondents considered and rejected their prayer for appointment. IA filed by the respondents seeking recall of the order passed in CRLMC before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was disposed of. On 29.01.2025, RA filed by the applicants seeking review of the order in OA No. 359 and 360 of 2016 was dismissed. Request was made to the police authority for returning the documents containing the LTIs of the applicants to send the same to GEQD but the police authorities intimated that the said documents have been filed along with the charge sheet in GR case before the Learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar. Since, the allegation of impersonation is yet to be eradicated, in absence of the report of the GEQD, any direction at this stage for giving appointment to the applicants would be against the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors v RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 17 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, & Satish Chandra Yadav vs Union of India & Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300, wherein it was held that what would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of both the OAs.
12. We have considered the submissions of the respective parties and perused the records.
13. As it reveals from the records, prior to the instant OAs, the applicants had earlier filed OA Nos. 440/2006, 274/2009, 953/2015, 82/2016, 359/2016, 360/2016, RA Nos. 1/2023 and 2/2023, which were considered and disposed of by this Bench.
14. After considering the submissions and going through the records, we do not find any support on the plea of res judicata raised by the respondents because in the earlier OA No. 359 and 360 of 2016, the last part of the direction was to RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 18 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 consider/reconsider the case of the applicants keeping in mind the facts and law discussed therein and communicate the decision to the applicants in a well reasoned/speaking order within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents upon consideration did not find any merit to provide appointment to the applicants and, accordingly, rejected their claim in the impugned letter, which gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the applicants to challenge.
15. Similarly, we find that the impugned letters were issued after giving consideration to the case of the applicants in compliance of the order of this Bench in OA Nos. 359 and 360 of 2016, against which order, RAs filed by the applicants were pending, obviously, the applicants under the bonafide belief that in the event the RAs are allowed, there will no sanctity of impugned letters. The RAs were dismissed on 29.01.2025 and the present OAs were filed by the applicants on 03.07.2025, i.e. within one year from the date of dismissal of the RAs. Hence, the points of delay in filing the OAs raised by the respondents donot RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 19 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 sound to appeal so as to throw the matters on such grounds, which points are hereby overruled.
16. Ld. Counsel for the applicants has taken the main plank of the cases on the direction of this Bench dated 16.03.2009 passed in OA No. 21/2006, relevant portion of the order is quoted below:
"In view of the above, the Respondents hereby directed to send the photographs and signature on admit card for physical test and photograph and signature on the admit card for written test of the applicant and all other similarly situated case (whose candidature has been rejected due to discrepancy of signature, LTI etc.) to the GEQD/Hand Writing Experts, namely to the Government Department of questioned documents are sent for expert opinion with intimation to the applicants to that effect, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with a request to let them send their report as early as possible. On receipt of the report from GEQD/Hand writing experts, the Respondents are directed to take further action in the matter. In any event the Respondents should intimate the Applicant and each of the similarly placed candidates on the outcome of the reference to the Experts within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order". (emphasis supplied]
17. The OA No. 274/2009 filed by the applicants were disposed of on 14.03.2012, relevant portion of the order is placed hereunder:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 20 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 "We are confronted with a peculiar situation in the resolution of the dispute raised in the present Original Application Ordinarily, this Tribunal would have been bound to reiterate the order dated 16th March, 2009 in OA No 21 of 2006 particularly referring to the following and all other similarly situated case (whose candidature has been rejected due to discrepancy of signature, LTI etc.) to the GEQD/Hand Writing Experts..... (We learnt during hearing that this order has not yet been reversed by any higher forum). But we refrain from doing so as there is a conflicting finding by the State Finger Print Bureau, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in the GR Case filed by the Respondents alleging impersonation by the Applicants. Apparently, this finding contradicts the findings of the CFPI of the ECoRailway, Khurda Road Division. Because of this development we are hamstrung in giving any decision on the matter except directing the Railway-Respondents to take action as per our order dated 16th March, 2009 in OA No. 21 of 2006, referred to above, depending upon the final outcome of the GR Case"
18. The Learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar in his order dated 12.02.2018 taken cognizance to proceed against the applicants in the GR Case under Section 419/468/465/420/34 of IPC. For the purpose of clarity, the provisions of the aforesaid sections of the IPS deal as under:
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
419. Punishment for cheating by personation.-- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 21 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
465. Punishment for forgery.--Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1 [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
19. Admittedly, the order of the Learned JMFC dated 12.02.2018 to proceed against the applicants under Section 419/468/465/420/34 of IPC was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and the matter was set at rest being not challenged in any higher forum. Thus, in the eyes of law, there is no criminal case pending against the applicants. According to the respondents there being conflicting findings between the report given by the State Finger Print Bureau, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in the GR Case filed against the applicants on the ground of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 22 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 impersonation and the findings of the CFPI of the ECoRailway, Khurda Road Division, the report of the GEQD is very much essential for eradication of the doubt of impersonation in the examination, which was also in accordance with the order dated 14.03.2012 in OA No. 274/2009. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, after coming to an end to the GR Case in favour of the applicants, the doubt of impersonation gets extinguished and the report of the GEQD would be irrelevant as per the order of this Bench dated 14.03.2012 in OA No. 274/2009.
20. We have examined the earlier order of this Bench dated 14.03.2012 in OA No. 274/2009 and we find this Bench in the said order due to conflicting opinion referred to above did not incline to direct the respondents to send the LTIs of the applicants to GEQD as directed by this Bench on 16.03.2009 in OA No. 21/2006 and directed the Railway-Respondents to take action as per order dated 16th March, 2009 in OA No. 21 of 2006, referred to above, depending upon the final outcome of the GR Case. Respondents have fairly admitted that they have sought the documents from the police authorities to send the same to GEQD RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 23 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 but the police authority intimated that those documents have been submitted before the Learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar in connection with GR Case. In the circumstances, instead of taking efforts to get the documents from the court, to sent the same to GEQD, rejecting their prayer outrightly is contrary to the order of this Bench dated 16.03.2009 in OA 21/2006 and, thus, can aptly be said to be without due application of mind and so also taking the order dated 14.03.2012 in OA No. 274/2009 in its proper perspective. Hence, for the ends of justice, it is held/directed as under:
(i) The letters dated 13.03.2023 in both the OAs are hereby quashed;
(ii) The respondents are directed to make endeavour to obtain the documents from the Court of Learned JMFC, Bhubaneswar by following due procedure/rules within a period of 60 days;
(iii) On receipt of the documents, the same shall be sent to the GEQD for necessary examination within a period of 10 days therefrom and, pursue the matter to get the report within another period of 30 days;
(iv) Upon receipt of the report from the GEQD, take further steps on the grievance of the applicants for appointment, communicating RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.08 09:51:57 +05'30' 24 O.A.Nos. 260/00289 and 290 of 2025 the same to the applicant, within a period of 30 days therefrom;
21. In the result, with the aforesaid observation and direction, both the OAs stands disposed of. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.01.08
09:51:57 +05'30'