Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sourabh Singh Saini vs General Manager N C Rly on 14 January, 2026
1
Reserved on 28.11.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Original Application No.206 of 2020
Allahabad this the 14th day of January, 2026
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Saurabh Singh Saini, aged about 26 years, S/o Sri Yashpal Singh Saini,
Resident of House No. E/169A, Railway Station Colony, Izzat Nagar, District
Bareilly.
.............Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway Allahabad through its
Chairman.
. . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A) Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned information/letter dated and order f. 20.07.20 30.11.2019 (Annexure No.A-1 to the original application).
(ii) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents to include the name of applicant in the final select list and offer the appointment on group 'D' post in O.B.C. category with all Consequential benefits.
(iii) To issue any order or direction, which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 2
(iv) To award the cost of the application to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicants are that the Railway Recruitment Board has issued Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2018 on 10.02.2018 for recruitment of about 62,000 Group 'D' posts. The applicant, being eligible, applied under this notification and his application was accepted. He was issued a call letter and he appeared in the written examination held on 28.11.2018, in which he was declared successful. Thereafter, he qualified the physical efficiency test conducted on 04.04.2019. He was then called for document verification on 04.06.2019, where all his documents were found genuine. Subsequently, he appeared in the medical examination on 06.06.2019 and was declared medically fit in all respects for appointment to the Group 'D' post. Later, the recruitment cell uploaded information on its website stating that the candidature of 306 candidates had been cancelled for various reasons. While some candidates were declared medically unfit and given the option to appeal, the applicant's name was also included in the cancelled list without any clear reason. On checking his status using his roll number, the applicant found that his candidature was cancelled vide orders dated 30.11.2019 and 28.07.2020 on the ground of mismatch of thumb impression, handwriting, or signature, without specifying at which stage this mismatch was found. The respondents have not issued and shows cause notice to the applicant prior to cancelling his candidature on the imaginary ground, because the thumb impression/signature/handwriting of the applicant could not be verified by any forensic lab or any expert opinion obtained and as such there is gross violation of principle of natural justice, which cancelling the candidature of the applicant. Similar cancellations have already been challenged and decided by the Tribunal in other cases. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicants have filed the present original application.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 3
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it has been stated that the Railway Recruitment Board issued CEN No. 02/2018 for recruitment to Level-1 (Group 'D') posts, including 4,762 posts in North Central Railway, Allahabad. The applicant applied online, appeared in the Computer Based Test on 28.11.2018, qualified the Physical Efficiency Test on 04.04.2019, and was called for document verification and medical examination in June 2019. During document verification, the verifying officers found a mismatch between the applicant's handwriting, signature, and thumb impression recorded at different stages of the examination process, including biometric data captured during CBT and PET. The matter was verified by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, which confirmed the mismatch.
4.1 Based on this material evidence on record, the Recruitment Cell uploaded information on 30.11.2019 showing cancellation of candidature of 306 candidates, including the applicant, on various grounds. The applicant's candidature was shown as cancelled due to mismatch of handwriting, signature, and thumb impression. A show cause notice dated 17.12.2019 was issued to the applicant, and his reply was considered by the competent authority, but was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Chairman, RRC/NCR/ALD, passed an order dated 28.07.2020 cancelling the applicant's candidature and debarring him for life from appearing in all Railway examinations, in terms of paragraph 1(3) of CEN No.02/2018 and Railway Board instructions dated 14.02.2002. 4.2 The respondents contend that the action was taken strictly as per rules, after following principles of natural justice, and on the basis of expert evidence indicating impersonation or unfair means. It is further stated that the decision of the Recruitment Cell in matters of unfair means is final and binding, no prejudice was caused to the applicant, and there is no illegality or procedural infirmity in the impugned orders dated 30.11.2019 and 28.07.2020. Therefore, the respondents submit that the Original Application filed by the applicant is baseless, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed with costs. NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 4
5. In the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant he has reiterated the averments as made in the original application. 5.1 In addition, it is further submitted that since the applicant had appeared in the selection process under the watch of CCTV Cameras, where the photographs of the applicant was tallied by the invigilator concerned, while taking the handwriting signature and thumb impression of the applicant, therefore, question of mismatch is totally baseless, as neither expert opinion nor laboratory report was obtained by the respondents prior to cancelling the candidature of the applicant. No notice of show cause, was issued to the applicant prior to debarring him from selection proceeding to the government services for life time, whereas the show cause notice was issued subsequently after passing debarring order and as such there was no meaning of the alleged show cause notice in the eyes of law, hence impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set-aside by this court. Since the similar controversy has already been decided by this Tribunal which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 (Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), which was affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.24965/2023 vide its order dated 09.12.2024 and as such nothing remains to be re-adjudicated by this court on merit.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the issue involved in this Original Application has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 (Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), which was affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.24965/2023 vide its order dated 09.12.2024 and as such, this case may also be disposed of in view of the observations made in Writ A No.21096/2018 (supra).
6.1 He further submits that the applicant appeared in the examination and finger prints (thumb impression) were also taken during the exam in examination hall by invigilator as a proof of attendance of real candidates, but NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 5 the respondents have not considered the same, while passing the impugned orders and, therefore, same are liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that although the applicant qualified the CBT and PET and were called for document and medical verification, discrepancies were detected during verification. The Verification Officer found that the applicants' handwriting and signatures, did not match with those recorded during the CBT. The matter was referred to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, who confirmed impersonation. This established that the applicant themselves had not appeared for the written examination or PET and had attempted to secure employment through fraudulent means. A show-cause notice was issued, but the applicants' replies were found unsatisfactory. Therefore, respondents have rightly passed in the impugned order, by cancelling the candidature of the applicant and also debarred the applicant from all future RRC/RRB recruitments. The applicant has committed fraud in appearing in selection process. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
8. Submissions of both the parties have been heard and records as well as the written submission have been gone through.
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this Original Application is now no more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Court in Writ A No.21096/2018 (Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and vide order dated 16.05.2023, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has clearly held as under:-
21. It is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the show cause notice/memorandum was supported by any material, including, the opinion of the handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting expert was not supplied in support of the memorandum to justify the allegation of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on the application form or on the subsequent papers pertaining to Written Examination/P.E.T. NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 6 undertaken by the petitioners. The entire exercise was undertaken by the Railways behind the back of the petitioners.
22. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified on the available materials on record to hold petitioners guilty of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on various documents.
23. In Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, this Court observed that handwriting expert opinion is at best an opinion, which is not conclusive proof of mismatch of handwriting or impersonation.
Expert opinion has been considered to be of very weak nature, which requires corroboration from other material facts pertaining to the allegation.
24. This Court held as follows:
"Evidence of an expert is only an opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be considered along with other pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and with is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a scientific opinion which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their views would be made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them."
xxx xxx xxx
29. The respondents in the given facts of the case at hand were expected to confront the petitioners with the material relied upon against them, particularly, when the petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any further examination conducted by the RRB/RRC and their candidature was cancelled for the examination on mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression.
30. The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The learned Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
31. The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test and P.E.T., thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
32. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners, herein, had not carried the relevant documents, including, identity card to the examination centre or had not participated in the P.E.T./Medical Examination.
33. In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e., the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
34. In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, NEELAM KUMARI SINGH 7 but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material.
35. The respondent's action otherwise is not inconformity with the principles of natural justice, accordingly, the impugned order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic cannot be sustained.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith.
37. It is clarified that no other ground or point was pressed by the counsels for the respective parties.
10. The order passed in Writ A No.21096 of 2018 has already been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.24965/2023.
11. In view of judicial pronouncement, the applicant is also entitled for similar benefits as has been given to applicants of Writ A No.21096/2018 and as such, this Original Application stands allowed in terms of order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Writ A. No.21096/2018 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.24965/2023.
12. In view of the above foregoing discussions, impugned orders dated 30.11.2019 and 28.07.2020 are set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment on Group-D post in OBC category pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement, subject to document verification/medical examination, if applicable, and if seats are still vacant and if they are within the zone of consideration/merit list and fulfill all other selection criteria, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
13. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
/Neelam/
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH