Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Lala Thakur vs East Central Railway on 21 February, 2024
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Reserved on : 21.12.2023
Pronounced on:. 21.02.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER [A]
HON'BLE MR AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
1. O.A. No. 050/00214/2022
Lala Thakur, son of Vijay Thakur, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel),
East Central Railway, Singrauli under Dhanbad Division, Resident of
Hanuman Nagar Gaon, Behind Same Factory Nalapar, PO-Lohianagar,
District - Patna - 800026 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O,. - Digghi Kala, P.S.-Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali,
At - Hajipur, PIN Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel with Smt.
P.R. Lakshmi, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
2. O.A. No. 050/00215/2022
Raju Kumar, Son of Sri Kishor Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Diesel), East Central Railway, Kodarma, Resident of Vill-Saistabad, PO-
Saistabad, PS- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad-804418 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O,. - Digghi Kala, P.S.-Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali,
At - Hajipur, PIN Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for Respondents
-2-
3. O.A. No. 050/00216/2022
Tinku Kumar, Son of Sri Sahjanand Sharma, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Diesel), East Central Railway, Renukoot, Resident of Adlipur, PO- Neora,
District- Patna-801113 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O,. - Digghi Kala, P.S.-Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali,
At - Hajipur, PIN Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.R. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
4. O.A. No. 050/00217/2022
Abkash Kumar, Son of Sri Chandradeo Prasad, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Gomoh, Resident of Vill-Kotehar, PO-
Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai-811106 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O,. - Digghi Kala, P.S.-Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali,
At - Hajipur, PIN Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri R.R. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
5. O.A. No. 050/00218/2022
Santosh Kumar, Son of Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Sharma, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Diesel), East Central Railway, Shaktinagar, Resident of Vill-Bari
Tengrella, PO- Shahar Rampur, PS- Naubatpur, District- Patna-801109
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O,. - Digghi Kala, P.S.-Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali,
At - Hajipur, PIN Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
-3-
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
WITH
Reserved on : 30.01.2024
6. O.A. No. 050/00219/2022
Rohit Kumar Son Of Sri Karamdhari Paswan, Ex Assistant Loco Pilot, East
Central Railway, Patratu, Resident Of Vill-Bageshwari, New Colony, Po-
Railway Station, Gaya, Ps- Delha, District- Gaya- 823002 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, P.O.- Digghi Kala, P.S.-
Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Pin Code- 841001 (Bihar)
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
7. O.A. No. 050/00220/2022
Pankaj Kumar Son Of Sikandar Prasad Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Diesel), East Central Railway, Krishnshila, Resident Of Barmasia,
Budh Chak Road, PO/PS/District- Katihar-854105 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
-4-
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri S.K. Sinha, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
8. O.A. No. 050/00221/2022
Suman Kumar Son Of Sri Jawahar Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Elect), East Central Railway, Gomoh, Resident Of Vill-Patelnagar, Ward
No.31, PO/ District- Saharasa-852201 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Deepak Kr., Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
9. O.A. No. 050/00222/2022
Raj Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Brahmdeo Prasad Singh, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Chandrapura, Resident Of Vill-
Bania, PO- Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur- 853204 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Respondents
10. O.A. No. 050/00223/2022
Abhishek Anand Son Of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Resident Of Bhawanipur, PO-
Dighri, District- Lakhisarai-811106 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
-5-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri M.D. Dwivedi, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
11. O.A. No. 050/00224/2022
Manu Maharaj Son Of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, Ex Assistant Loco Pilot
(Elect), East Central Railway, Berwadih, Resident Of Vill/PO- Nawada, Ps-
Chowtham, District- Khagaria-851201 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, P.O.- Digghi Kala, P.S.-
Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Pin Code- 841001 (Bihar)
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri T.N. Thakur, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
12. O.A. No. 050/00225/2022
Vikash Kumar Son Of Sri Mahesh Prasad Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Diesel), East Central Railway, Renukoot, Resident Of Vill- Forsahi
PO- Mahmuda, Ps- Alamnagar, District- Madhepura-852219 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
-6-
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri G.K. Agrawal, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
13. O.A. No. 050/00226/2022
Kshitij Prakash Son Of Late Tarini Prasad Мента, Ex Assistant Loco Pilot
(Elect), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Resident Of Vill-Mirzapurdih, PO-
Husaina, District- Begusarai- 851211 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, P.O.- Digghi Kala, P.S.-
Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Pin Code- 841001 (Bihar)
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Addl. Standing Counsel for
Respondents
14. O.A. No. 050/00320/2022
Rajesh Kumar Son Of Sri Dinesh Prasad, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Diesel), East Central Railway, Chopan, Resident Of Vill- Makhdumpur,
PO- Khagaul, District- Patna-801105 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
-7-
15. O.A. No. 050/00323/2022
Subham Kumar Gupta Son Of Sri Bhagwan Jee Sah, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Gomoh, Resident Of Vill/PO/PS-
Barauli, District- Gopalganj-841405 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
16. O.A. No. 050/00571/2022
Prakash Chandra Bharati Son Of Ram Pravesh Singh, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot, East Central Railway, Diesel Looby, Narkatiyaganj Under
Samastipur Division, Resident Of Vill- Ashopur, Post- Khagaul, PS-
Danapur, District- Patna -801105 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operation Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. DIGGHI KALA, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur,
Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Addl. Standing Counsel for
Respondents
17. O.A. No. 050/00754/2022
-8-
Abadhesh Kumar Son Of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Ex Loco Pilot (Goods),
East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Barauni Under Sonpur Division,
Resident Of Vill/PO- Kolhatha, Ps- Barahat, District- Banka-813109 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur,
Pin Code 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonpur,
District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
18. O.A. No. 050/00755/2022
Amit Kumar Son Of Sri Laddu Lal Paswan, Ex Loco Pilot (Gods), East
Central Railway, Crew Looby, Barauni Under Sonpur Division, Resident Of
Vill- Jagatpura, Po- Btps, District- Begusarai-851116 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur,
Pin Code 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonpur,
District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Op), East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri R.R. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
19. O.A. No. 050/00772/2022
-9-
Ranjeet Kumar, Son Of Sri Bhagwat Ram, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Muzaffarpur Under Sonpur Division,
Resident Of Vikashpuram Colony, Khagaul Road, PO- Phulwari Sharif,
District- Patna-801505 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur,
Pin Code 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonpur,
District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
20. O.A. No. 050/00773/2022
Vikash Kumar Son Of Sri Umesh Kumar Roy, Ex Loco Pilot (Goods), East
Central Railway, Crew Looby, Barauni Under Sonpur Division, Resident Of
Vill/PO-Thutthi, Khagaria-851214 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur,
Pin Code 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonpur,
District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Op), East Central Railway,
Sonpur, District- Saran-841101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
-10-
Shri T.N. Thakur, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
21. O.A. No. 050/00821/2022
Amit Kumar Son Of Munna Prasad, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay, Resident Of Vishram
Nagar, Dharahara, PO-Arrah, Ps- Town Thana, District-Bhojpur -802301
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
5. The Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri T.N. Thakur, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
22. O.A. No. 050/00861/2022
Niraj Kumar Son Of Ram Chandra Ray, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay, Resident Of Vill-
Khapura, Post- Ghosi, PS- Kako, District-Jehanabad- 804406 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
5. The Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
23. O.A. No. 050/00862/2022
Sanjay Kumar Roy Son Of Sri Narayan Roy, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot, East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Samastipur Division, Saharasa
Under Resident Of Vill- Belagovind, Po- Champawati, PS- District- Purnea
-854306 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
-11-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Manager, East Divisional Railway Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Tr), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
24. O.A. No. 050/00875/2022
Manoj Kumar Son Of Sri Ram Babu Choudhary, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay, Resident Of
Sabajpura, Sharda Nangar, Post- Khagaul, PS-Phulwari Sharif, Districtт-
Patna -801105 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
5. The Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
25. O.A. No. 050/00021/2023
Mukesh Kumar Son Of Sri Kamla Rajak, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Mujaffarpur Under Samastipur Division,
Resident Of Vill- Dangraahar, PO/ PS/District- Arwal -804401 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway,
Hazipur, P.O.- Digghi Kala, P.S.- Hajipur (Town), District- Vaishali at
Hajipur, Pin Code- 841001 (Bihar)
-12-
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Radhika Raman, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
26. O.A. No. 050/00050/2023
Manoj Kumar Son Of Sri Mohan Paswan, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Saharasa Under Samastipur Division,
Resident Of Vill- Rampur Chowraha Bhravpar, PO/PS- Khagaul, District-
Patna -801105 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
27. O.A. No. 050/00051/2023
Shankar Kumar Son Of Ajay Kumar, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, East
Central Railway, Crew Looby, Muzaffarpur Under Samastipur Division,
Resident Of Vill- Alawalchak, PO/PS- Rampur Chauram, District- Arwal -
804402 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operation Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
-13-
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Radhika Raman, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
28. O.A. No. 050/00052/2023
Deepak Kumar Son Of Ranjeet Kumar Choudharay, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot, Crew East Lobby, Central Railway, Darbhanga, Resident Of Vill-
Mosimpur Kurtha, Post- Fatuha, PS- Fatuha, District- Patna- 803201 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operation Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
29. O.A. No. 050/00053/2023
Murari Kumar Sharma Son Of Sri Bhola Sharma, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot, East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Narkatiyaganj Under
Samastipur Division, Resident Of Vill- Chanpatia, Ward No.14, PO/PS-
Chanpatia, District- West Champaran -845449 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
-14-
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Deepak Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
30. O.A. No. 050/00065/2023
Dhanajay Kumar Son Of Sri Mod Narayan Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot, East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Mujaffarpur Under Samastipur
Division, Resident Of Vill- Mahendra Nagar, PO-Barah, PS- Rani Talab
(Kanpa), District- Patna -801112 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri G.K. Agrawal, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
31. O.A. No. 050/00066/2023
Amit Kumar Son Of Sri Jageshwar Манто, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot,
East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Saharasa Under Samastipur Division,
Resident Of Vill- Bhawanipur, PO- Dighri, PS- Surajgarha, District-
Lakhisarai -811106 (Bihar)
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
-15-
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri M.D. Dwivedi, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
32. O.A. No. 050/00067/2023
Binayak Kumar Son Of Sri Ram Eakval Yadav, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot, East Central Railway, Crew Looby, Mujaffarpur Under Samastipur
Division, Resident Of Vill- Bhashimchak Bhagwatipur, PO-Neora, PS-
Shahpur, District- Patna -801113 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Principal Chief Operation Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar)..
6. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Samastipur-848101 (Bihar).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Kumar Sachin, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
33. O.A. No. 050/00160/2023
Ravi Kant Ray Son Of Sri Braj Kishore Ray, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay, Resident Of Village-
Paharpur West, PO- Paharpur, PS- Jurawanpur, District Vaishali -844508
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Din
Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
-16-
5. The Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101 (UP).
6. The Principal, Ettc, East Central Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay-232101
(UP).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for Respondents
34. O.A. No. 050/01003/2019
Satya Prakash Son Of Sri Om Prakash Gupta, Ex- Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Electric), East Mugalsarai, Central Railway, Resident Of Mohalla-
Khandakpar, Opposite Anurag Cinema, Post Biharsharif, District Nalanda,
Pin Code - 803101 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.
Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin Code -
841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai
Distctrict- Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai Distctrict- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Mugalsarai District-Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
7. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
8. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai District- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
35. O.A. No. 050/01006/2019
Vikash Kumar Son Of Sri Satyendra Prasad, Ex- Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot(Electric), East Central Railway, Gaya, Resident Of Village/Post-
Mandil, PS- Parasbigha District Jehanabad, Pin Code 804417(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.
Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin Code -
841001 (Bihar).
-17-
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai
Distctrict- Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai Distctrict- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Mugalsarai District-Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
7. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
8. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai District- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
36. O.A. No. 050/01012/2019
Nitish Kumar Son Of Sri Kailash Yadav, Ex- Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Mugalsarai, Resident Of Village- Tiri, Post
Dhanchhoha, Ps- Saur Bazar District 852121 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.
Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin Code -
841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai
Distctrict- Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai Distctrict- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Mugalsarai District-Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
7. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
8. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai District- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Kumar Sachin, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
37. O.A. No. 050/00111/2020
Radhe Mohan Son Of Sri Basant Prasad Sharma, Ex- Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Gaya, Resident Of Village Khanpur,
Po/Ps- Bhagwanganj, District - Patna (Bihar).
-18-
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.
Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin Code -
841001 (Bihar).
3. The Principal Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (Bihar).
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai
Distctrict- Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai Distctrict- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Mugalsarai District-Chandauli -232101 (U.P)
7. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
8. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Mugalsarai District- Chandauli 232101 (U.P)
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Rabindra Kr. Choubey, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
38. O.A. No. 050/00568/2022
Subodh Kumar Son Of Ram Nandan Choudhary, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Gomoh Under Dhanbad Division,
Resident Of Vill- Darveshpur, Post- Beapur, Ps- Maner, District- Patna-
801108 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Deepak Kr., Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
39. O.A. No. 050/00569/2022
-19-
Tarun Kumar Son Of Ram Sumer Prasad, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Diesel), East Central Railway, Patratu Under Dhanbad Division, Resident
Of Vill/PO- Srichandrapur, (Bihar). District- Patna-800011
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri M. D. Dwivedi, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
40. O.A. No. 050/00570/2022
Nand Kishor Kumar Son Of Ram Nandan Paswan, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Khelari Under Dhanbad Division,
Resident Of Vill- Kopa Kalan, Post/PS- Naubatpur, District- Patna-801109
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
41. O.A. No. 050/00572/2022
Ravi Shankar Kumar Son Of Parveen Prasad Tamoli, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Barkakανα Under Dhanbad
Division, Resident Of Vill/PO/PS- Silao, District- Nalanda-803117 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
-20-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Radhika Raman, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
42. O.A. No. 050/00573/2022
Shiv Nandan Kumar Son Of Ram Swarup Prasad Sinha, Ex Senior
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Dhanbad, Resident Of
Bhawanipur, PO- Dighri, PS- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai- 811106
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
43. O.A. No. 050/00574/2022
Sandeep Kumar Son Of Yogendra Prasad, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Disel), East Central Railway, Krishnshila, Under Dhanbad Division,
Resident Of Vill- Tetuatar, Post- Atri, District- Gaya- 823311 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
-21-
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
44. O.A. No. 050/00575/2022
Manoj Kumar Мahto Son Of Sri Bashishtha Muni Мahto, Ex Senior
Assistant Loco Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Kodrama Under
Dhanbad Division, Resident Of Vill- Mansinpur, Post- Milki (Ishwarpura),
PS- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur-802112 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri R.R. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
45. O.A. No. 050/00576/2022
Dharmendra Kumar Son Of Narayan Мahto, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Patratu Under Dhanbad Division,
Resident Of Vill- Bhawanipur, Post- Dighari, PS- Surajgarha, District-
Lakhisarai-811106 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
-22-
Shri Kumar Sachin, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
46. O.A. No. 050/00577/2022
Ajay Kumar Yadav Son Of Sri Ram Sundar Yadav, Ex Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot (Electric), East Central Railway, Gomoh, Under Dhanbad
Division, Resident Of Vill- Arnama, PO- Basudeopur, PS- Laukaha, District-
Madhubani-847421 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri Rabindra Kr. Choubey, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
47. O.A. No. 050/00578/2022
Vikash Kumar Son Of Sri Binda Paswan, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Khelari Under Dhanbad Division, Resident
Of Vill- N Nadiyawan, Post- Dhangawan, PS- Kako, District- Jehanabad-
804408 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Smt. P.R. Lakshmi, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
48. O.A. No. 050/00579/2022
Suchit Kumar Son Of Sri Sita Ram Paswan, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Electric), East Central Railway, Barkakana, Under Dhanbad Division,
Resident Of Vill- Shankarpur, PO- Belhari, PS- Belaganj, District- Gaya-
804403 (Bihar).
-23-
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
49. O.A. No. 050/00580/2022
Dev Kant Kumar Son Of Sikandar Singh, Ex Senior Assistant Loco Pilot
(Disel), East Central Railway, Singrauli, Under Dhanbad Division, Resident
Of Vill- Laxmipur, Post- Nirpur, PS- Chautham, District- Khagaria-851201
(Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri T.N. Thakur, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
50. O.A. No. 050/00611/2022
Lallu Kumar Son Of Sri Suresh Prasad Yadav, Ex Senior Assistant Loco
Pilot (Elect), East Central Railway, Kodrama, Resident Of SBS Colony,
LIG-290, Mustafabad, PO/PS- Rampur, District- Gaya-823001 (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali
At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (Bihar).
-24-
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
4. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central
Railway, Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
5. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway,
Dhanbad-826101 (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents.
Shri M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for Applicant.
Shri G. S. Prasad, Addl. Standing Counsel for respondents
ORDER
Per Ajay Pratap Singh, Member [Judicial]:-
1. All the original applications raise similar question of law and are based on almost identical facts. It shall be sufficient to note in details the facts of lead case of OA No. 050/00214/2022, Lala Thakur Versus Union of India & Ors. for appreciating the issues raised in this batch of original applications. Shri M.P. Dixit learned counsel appearing for applicants in all these OAs. Shri H.P. Singh, Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel assisted by Learned Additional Standing Counsels for respondents in all these cases.
2. These Original applications have been filed by the applicants to set-
aside final order of removal from service passed by revisionary authority upheld punishment imposed by disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority. So also to set-aside order of removal from service passed by disciplinary authority and upheld by order of appellate authority, to declare memorandum of charge-SF-5 major penalty chargesheet and inquiry report as void-ab-initio and So also seeking further direction to respondents to reinstate applicants with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary from date of order of removal from service till date of reinstatement with statutory interest along with cost of the OAs.
3. All the above five original applications, OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022 and 218/2022 were heard together on 21.12.2023 and reserved for orders on 21.12.2023 as the cause of action, background facts, applicants prayer in each case were similar.
-25-4. The learned counsel appearing for the parties informed that in all other similar forty five original applications involving also similar question of law and are also based on almost identical facts, cause of action, applicants prayer in all these batch of OAs as in five OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022 and 218/2022 already heard together and reserved for orders on 21.12.2023.
5. These forty five original applications batch of cases were also heard on 31.01.2024 simultaneously and on 31.01.2024 reserved for orders. The learned counsel for parties submitted that all the forty five OAs as well as five OAs based on similar question of law and also based on same cause of action, background facts. The learned counsel for parties also submitted that only difference that OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022, 218/2022, 219/2022, 220/2022, 221/2022, 222/2022, 223/2022, 224/2022, 225/2022, 226/2022, 320/2022, 323/2022, 571/2022, 754/2022, 755/2022, 772/2022, 773/2022 821/2022, 861/2022, 862/2022, 875/2022, 21/2023, 50/2023, 51/2023, 52/2023, 53/2023, 65/2023, 67/2023 and OA NO. 160/2023 have been filed challenging order passed by revisionary authority upholding the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect without any benefits, imposed by disciplinary authority and order of Appellate Authority. Whereas Original application No. 1003/2019, 1006/2019, 1012/2019, 111/2020, 568/2022, 569/2022, 570/2022, 572/2022, 573/2022, 574/2022, 575/2022, 576/2022, 577/2022, 578/2022, 579/2022, 580/2022, 611/2022, and 66/2023 are in second round of litigation. In the first round this Tribunal quashed orders passed by appellate as well as revisionary authorities of removal from service and directed to pass orders afresh. Now these 45 O.As. have been filed challenging order passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of disciplinary authority of removal from service with immediate effect.
6. This batch of original applications filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985 raise similar question of law and are based on almost similar cause of action, background facts based on almost identical facts hence decided by the common order.
Ο.Α. NO.050/00214/2022 LALA THAKUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA- & Ors.
PRAYER -26-
7. The applicant has claimed following reliefs (as extracted from original application)-
(i) That, Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set-
aside the order of removal from service dated 18.02.2021 passed by respondent no.05 as contained in Annexure A/1 together with appellate order dated 24.08.2021 as contained in Annexure A/2 passed by the respondent no.04 and revisional order dated 02.03.2022 as contained in Annexure A/3 passed by the respondent no.2.
(ii) That Your Lordships may further be pleased to declare the charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and inquiry report dated 20.01.2021 as contained in Annexure A/4 and A/8 respectively as null and void ab- initio wrong.
(iii) That Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service henceforth along with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary from 18.02.2021 till the date of his reinstatement alongwith statutory interest.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceedings may be allowed in favour of the applicant.
BRIEF FACTS
8. Briefly, stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant are that he was initially appointed on 13.05.2015 as Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel) (in short A.L.P.) in G.P. Rs. 1900, pursuant to Employment NoticeNo.01/2014dated 18.01.2014 issued by R.R.B. Muzaffarpur after facing written exam held on 15.06.2014. Psycho/Aptitude test held on 22.09.2014 and documents verification done on09.01.2015, later found medically fit. The applicant was further promoted on the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel) G.P. Rs. 2400 on 29.12.2017.
9. The further case as per the applicant is that after more than four years from date of initial appointment as A.L.P. G.P. Rs. 1900 major penalty chargesheet dated 16.09.2020 under Rule 9 of Railway servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968 (in short Rules 1968), based on allegation that Report of Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata dated 04.02.2020 (in short C.F.S.L. Report) that applicant did not appear in written examination himself rather managed somebody else to appear in written examination on his behalf to secure appointment fraudulently and also Departmental Finger Print Examiner Report dated 19.03.2019 (in short Fingerprint Expert Report) the thumb impression available on O.M.R. Answer Sheet/ Attendance Sheet did not match with the thumb impression given by the applicant on the declaration forms submitted -27- by him on the date of document verification at R.R.B.- Muzaffarpur. The allegation of using fraudulent means by procuring impersonator with an intention to secure employment in Railway according to applicant is based on behest of vigilance officials.
10. The applicant further made averments in the O.A. that reply dated 26.09.2020 filed against charge sheet denying allegations. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer, C.L.I./ Dhanbad Div. ECR was appointed.
11. The applicant also stated that request denied for supply of additional relevant documents. So also requested for calling authors of RUD i.e. CFSL and fingerprint reports, to prove the charges and expert opinion reports are basis of charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer submitted Enquiry Report dated 20.01.2021 served on applicant to submit written briefs and charges held proved. The written brief dated 09.02.2021 submitted that without non- examination of prosecution witnesses no one can be punished merely on the basis of RUD i.e. CFSL and fingerprint reports unless and until author of these RUDs are allowed to examine and cross- examined by charged official in the enquiry.
12. Thereafter, disciplinary authority issued order dated 18.02.2021of removal from service (Annexure A-1) based on findings of Inquiry officer. The appellate authority vide order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure A-2) without considering grounds raised rejected departmental appeal and upheld order passed by the disciplinary authority. The applicant filed revision petition and during pendency filed O.A. No. 612/2021before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 17.11.2021. The revisionary -authority -A.D.R.M, E.C.R. Dhanbad rejected revision petition vide final impugned order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure A-3). Hence the present OA before this Tribunal.
13. Per Contra, the respondents have contested the claim of applicant by filing written statement wherein they have stated that applicant was empanelled, on completion of training, posted on the post of ALP. G.P. Rs.1900. The disciplinary Authority noticed that as evident from C.F.S.L. Report that writing of the applicant does not match with the candidate who has written exam and writing of the applicant who written at the time of document verification at RRB/MFJ. So also the departmental finger print examiner report thumb impression available on OMR Answer Sheet /Attendance Sheet did not match the thumb impression given by the applicant -28- on the declaration forms submitted by him on the date of documents verification in RRB/Muzzafarpur. The Forensic Science findings examining documents scientifically and corroborated by finger print expert report a conclusive proof of identity of person with convincing reasons in Handwriting Forensic expert report made out that applicant used fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with an intention to secure employment in Railway service.
The major penalty chargesheet dated 16.09.2020 was issued levelling charges of using fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with an intention to secure employment in Railway. The complete set of S. F 5 with complete set of documents, expert opinion reports served on the applicant. Applicant submitted reply to SF-5 denying guilty. Thereafter Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and Defence Assistant were appointed. The full and complete opportunity as per Rules 1968 in disciplinary proceedings given so also expert reports produced in due course of business. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. The applicant was given opportunity to contradict by producing documents, oral evidence, adducing defence witness. But applicant failed to produce defence evidence to rebut allegations. The applicant also submitted his defence arguments by way of filing written brief to the Enquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report, finding applicant guilty of all charges of high level of fraud by procuring impersonation to secure Railway service. The Disciplinary Authority considering forensic science findings on established scientific process of reputed govt. institute by reasoned and speaking order dtd. 18.02.2021 inflicted penalty of removal from service. The appellate authority on 24.08.2021 upheld the order of removal from service. The revisionary authority vide speaking order dated 02.03.2022 passed reasoned and speaking order gave concurrent finding and upheld the punishment orders of removal from service.
14. The rejoinder has been filed by the applicant specifically denying the contentions of respondents made in the written statement. The applicant has stated that chargesheet was not maintainable in absence of list of prosecution witnesses, six documents not been supplied for taking defence as evident -29- from enquiry report violating principles of natural justice. The punishment orders are without application of mind. The chargesheet is without list of witnesses hence respondents stand that stated CFSL is autonomous body and reports of experts is itself legal evidence having evidentiary value cannot be accepted.
SUBMISSIONS
15. Mr. M.P. Dixit, Learned Counsel for all the applicants argued that:
(i) The chargesheet issued is defective in violation of Rule 9 of Rules 1968 for conducting disciplinary proceedings, the list of witnesses is mandatory. The Rule 9 of Rules 1968 itself provides that chargesheet should be accompanied mandatorily with a list of witnesses makers/authors who prepared scientific expert reports related to handwriting, signature, thumb impressions mismatch during written examination and on filling up declaration forms on date of documents verification at RRB /MFJ. The non-
examination in the enquiry of authors of finger print expert reports and thumb impression examiner reports will render expert opinion reports as dead- evidence and nullity without applicants been given opportunity to cross- examine authors of these reports. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated in violation of principles of natural justice and it is case of no evidence because department /prosecution has not produced any witnesses list in chargesheet as well as not produced any witnesses during the course of enquiry. Hence, the allegation of using fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with intent to secure Railway service on the post of A.L.P. cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The impugned order be quashed and present OA deserves to be allowed with all consequential benefits.
(ii) The Enquiry Officer prepared Enquiry Report without providing additional documents sought through disciplinary authority vide application dated at page 79 of paper book in the O.A. So also, as evident from the Enquiry Report dtd. 20.01.2021. The Enquiry Officer mentioned list of 5 documents under heading" प्रलेखों का मलू ्ाांकन " i.e. document dated 03.08.2020, 04.02.2020, 11.08.2020, 29.11.2019 and 07.06.2019 not been supplied to the applicant and enquiry report is vitiated being in violation of principles of natural justice. The relied upon documents (RUD) in the chargesheet though supplied but said documents i.e. CFSL Report dtd. 04.02.2020 as well as Finger Print Examiner Report dtd. 19.03.2019 given to the applicant and -30- produced in due course of business but not been proved by the authors of expert opinion reports accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. The Evidence Act has not been followed to prove the expert opinion reports. The only material to prove the allegations is expert reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and Finger Print Examiner taken into consideration which is violative of principles of natural justice and principles of service jurisprudence.
(iii) The applicants have completed training and promoted therefore serving chargesheet after more than five year is bad in law. So also the final impugned order is illegal, arbitrary passed mechanically affirming order of disciplinary as well as appellate authority on mismatch of signature, handwriting and thumb- impression.
16. Mr. M.P. Dixit Learned counsel appearing for all applicants also relied on judgments, orders summarized as under:-
(a) Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank and others in (2009) 2 SCC 570 [Relevant Para 14- which states as under:-
14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function.
The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management Witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.
(b) State of Uttar Pradesh and others Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 [Relevant para 28 and 27 which reads as under:-
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government.
His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the -31- unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
(c) Lalan Pandey Versus State of Bihar reported in 2017 (4) PLJR 274 [Relevant para 11 reads as under:-
11. In the circumstances so discussed above where there was no Presenting Officer either to lead or to prove the evidence that was collected against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer could not have assumed this duty to examine the evidence himself and to hold the same sufficient to uphold the guilt of the petitioner. Even if the case of the petitioner is of allegedly being caught red-handed while accepting the bribe and even if strict rules of evidence are not to be followed in the disciplinary proceeding yet a duty is case on the Enquiry Officer to examine the evidence to see whether it is supportive of the allegation made and connects the delinquent with the charge. In absence of the Presenting Officer this mandatory procedure could not have been discharged by the Enquiry Officer himself.
(d) Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar Versus B.S. Co-op. Land Development Bank 2000(3) PLJR 10 [Relevant para 12,16 & 19 reads as under:-
12. Under those rules there are detailed provisions for holding regular departmental enquiry. In holding of a departmental enquiry it is required to frame the charges against the delinquent employee by producing the departmental witnesses and by examining them by the enquiry officer. If the delinquent employee does not attend the enquiry even then the department has to prove the charge by examining the witnesses in support of its own documents. In the departmental enquiry no onus is cast upon the delinquent employee to prove the charges. The charges have to be proved by the department. If no witness is called by the department in support of the charges in that case .it should be held that the department has not proved its case and in such a situation the enquiry officer cannot record the findings with regard to guilt against the delinquent employee just because the delinquent employee is absent.
16. Since the aforesaid principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has been subsequently followed in many other cases, and has not been departed from till today, this Court cannot accept the bald statement urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the charges are based upon the documents so no witnesses need be examined to bring home the charges.
19. Therefore, in the facts of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that by not producing any evidence in support of its case, the respondent authorities have failed to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. Where charges have not been proved the enquiry report loses all its importance and the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. When a person is thrown out of employment, it must be on the basis of a procedure which is reasonable, just and fair. (See D.K. Jadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in (1993)3 SCC page 259 : 1994(2) PLJR (SC)55.
(e) Chandra Kishore Versus Union of India & Ors. In C.W.J.C. No. 16752 of 2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Patna. Their Lordships [Relevant para 4 reads as under:-
4. The Tribunal has not appreciated the legal contention that presenting officer was not appointed similarly Appellate Authority, while exercising appeal powers, was required to examine whether the disciplinary authority had followed the Rules in so far as the initiating -32- and completion of inquiry proceedings or not? Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned penalty order, Appellate Authority's order and order of the Tribunal.
When there is a violation of statutory Rules in such circumstances resorting to invoke statutory remedy by the aggrieved person is not warranted. Therefore, the contention of the respondent- Union of India that the petitioner had statutory remedy of revision is hereby rejected.
(f) Niranjan Prasad Versus The Central Bank of India reported in 2018(2) PLJR 692 [Relevant para 9 reads as under:-
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the technical rules of the evidence do not apply in the case of departmental proceedings but nonetheless the charges must be established with reference to materials available on record. At least author of the documents which are being placed on record to substantiate the guilt against the petitioner should have been examined in the enquiry. This has not been done in the instant case. What would have been the outcome of examination of Mr. D.P. Sinha, Senior Internal Auditor as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar (Computer Engineer), author of the report (MEX-7) cannot be visualized. Their non- examination has prejudiced the case of the petitioner in the proceedings and in absence of their examination, departmental proceedings cannot be said to have been conducted fairly in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice.
In this connection, this Court would refer to a decision rendered in case of Hardwari Lal vs State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (1999)8 SCC
582. Paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein for easy relerence:-
"Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non- examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant."
(g) The Chairman cum The Appellate Authority Bihar Publis Service Commission, Bihar Patna & Ors. Versus Meena Pratap & Ors. In CWJC No. 7006 of 2014 decided on 13.07.2022 by Hon'ble High Court at Patna. Their Lordships held as under:-
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO BANK) reported in 1995Supp. (3) SCC 212 and Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P Education Society & Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 held that if in an inquiry any document is relied in such an event the author of the document is required to be examined. That apart, non-citing of relevant documents and non citing of relevant witnesses in order to prove charge no. 1, 2 and 9 the appellants have not made out a case even though reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge may not be correct at the same time in view of the aforesaid lacunae the appellants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the dismissal dated 18.03.2018 and appellate authority -33- order dated 14.11.2013. Reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge would not come in the way of the present order. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal 1680 of 2018 stands dismissed.
(h) Vikash Kumar Versus Union of India reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 582 [Relevant para 10 reads as under:-
10. The aforesaid provision mandates that the disciplinary authority is required to furnish article of charges, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. No doubt, list of witnesses annexure is enclosed. At the same time, as against list of witnesses it has been indicated nil. When the disciplinary authority has cited twenty six documents it was bounden duty of the disciplinary authority to adduce oral evidence like author of the documents. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) reported in 1995 Supp(3) SCC 212 it is held that in a departmental enquiry if any document is required to be cited against an employee/officer author of the documents is required to be examined and cross-examined. To that affect there is an error committed by the disciplinary authority in not citing the relevant witnesses.
(i) Bharat Purbey Versus The State of Bihar reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 585 [Relevant para 16 reads as under:-
16. From the materials available on record and the settled legal position, one thing which is evident is that tendering of documents by department cannot be said to be adequate to establish a charge in a departmental proceeding, unless the contents thereof are also proved.
Admittedly, neither the contents of the FIR nor the charge-sheet has been proved. Further, non- examination of the complainant is a serious lacunae, which not only causes prejudice to the delinquent, but also nullifies the entire departmental proceeding.
(j) Meghnath Ram (in both) Versus The Union of India reported in 2023 (3) PLJR 285 [Relevant para 8 reads as under:-
8. Contentions of the respondents that examination of witnesses is not material in the present case since the inquiry officer has relied upon report of the cited witnesses and it is sufficient to prove the charges.
Such a contention is not appreciable in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and In so far as non- furnishing of UPSC advice is concerned, it is submitted that there is no provision. Even if there is no provision in not providing UPSC copy and the same has been taken note of by the disciplinary authority while imposing penalty, the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of his say on the UPSC advice. On this point, it is necessary to take note of Apex Court decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in (1993)4 SCC 727 in which one of the principles is that even if the regulation or rules do not provide for furnishing copy of the inquiring ground that officer's report, still the concerned authority is bound to furnish the inquiring officer's report, the same yardstick is attracted in the present case insofar as non- furnishing of UPSC advice to the petitioner before imposition of penalty. Therefore, CAT has committed error in not appreciating the legal issues hence, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case so as to interfere with the impugned penalty order dated 20.01.2016 and it is set aside, Original Application No. 963 of 2012 filed by the petitioner stands allowed.
(k) Union of India and others Versus Devendra Kumar Chaudhary and others in WRIT APPLICATION No. 7881 of 2015 decided on 30.04.2018 by Hon'ble High Court Allahabad [Relevant para 65 reads as under:-
65. When a document is relied, may be an opinion of an Expert, it only means that such an Expert has given such opinion but about -34- correctness of the opinion, unless Author is allowed to be examined by person against whom such opinion has been expressed, and thereafter such person is permitted to lead his own evidence in defence to contradict the opinion of Forensic Expert, it cannot be said that a valid piece of evidence has been considered in departmental inquiry.
In a departmental inquiry mere production of a document cannot be treated to be a conclusive evidence to prove the fact mentioned in the said document by treating the facts stated therein, true, unless Author of such document owns it in a quasi judicial inquiry proceedings and allowed to be cross examined by affected party. We are fortified in taking this view by Apex Court's judgment in M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd, Vs. The Workmen and others, AIR 1972 SC 330 where Court in para 14 of judgment has observed:
"But the application of principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the question that naturally arises is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true. When the Appellant produced the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the Company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the Appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. This is both in accord with principles of natural justice as also according to the procedure under Order XIX Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act both of which incorporate these general principles. Even if all technicalities of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable except in so far as Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules prescribed therein permit it, it is inconceivable that the Tribunal can act on what is not evidence such as hearsay, nor can it justify the Tribunal in basing its award on copies of documents when the originals which are in existence are not produced and proved by one of the methods either by affidavit or by witness who have executed them, if they are alive and can be produced. Again if a party wants an inspection, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to give inspection in so far as that is relevant to the enquiry. The applicability of these principles are well recognised and admit of no doubt." (para-14) (emphasis added)
(l) Devendra Kumar Chaudhary Versus Union of India, OA No. 330/00257/2014 (Allahabad) [Relevant para 12 reads as under:-
12 If we examine the facts of this case in the light of the finding of this Tribunal in O.A No. 612/2009 it is evident from the proceeding of this O.A that despite the attempt being made by the certain appellate authorities to conduct inquiry as per the prescribed rules and procedures then take a decision based upon the finding arrived therein, the successor appellate authority chose primarily to rely upon the documents of GEQD whose representative refused to be cross examination at any stage of disciplinary proceedings. In the case of Khem Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 1984(2) SLJ 680, Hon'ble High Court, Rajasthan clearly observed that the order of removal of an employee is illegal when the delinquent has been deprived of fair inquiry for improper appraisal of the evidence. Having regard to the -35- above position, as brought out by the citations and taking into account the events and circumstances of the case, we feel that the impugned order is unwarranted as it suffers from procedural infirmities of non-
providing appropriate opportunity for proper appraisal of evidence to the applicant and hence is liable to be set aside. It needs to be further noted that the SSC came with the finding and recommended the termination of the services of the applicant after lapse of more than seven years after the examination. The action on the part of the Income Tax Department at such a belated stage based upon only a technical report cannot be accepted as just and fair.
(m) Sanjeev Kumar Versus Union of India & Ors. In O.A. No. 330/918 of 2021 (Allahabad) decided on 13.10.2023. [The Relevant para 27, 28 & 29 reads as under:-
27. In the present case, the applicant was removed from service on the ground that his signatures had been sent to Forensic Sciences Laboratory for verification and upon receipt of reports from the said laboratories, it was evident that hand writing of the applicant on declaration form No. I, II & III duly filled by the applicant on the date of verification of documents did not match with the hand writing sample in the OMR Answer sheet written on the date of written exam.
Applicant was issued show cause notice to explain as to why his service should not be terminated. Applicant submitted his reply on 25.09.2020 and upon receipt of the explanation of the applicant documents and affording him opportunity to either adduce evidence or cross examine the witnesses. However, the plea of the respondents is that prior to passing of the punishment order, the applicant was given an opportunity of hearing/defence by issuing a show cause notice dated 03.09.2020, directing the applicant to submit his defense/reply as to why his services may not be terminated whereupon, applicant submitted his representation dated 25.09.2020 and after considering the reply of the applicant, a full-fledged enquiry has been conducted and thereafter applicant was removed from service.
28. In this matter as is evident from record, the appointment letter was issued to the applicant on 24.9.2015 and he joined the post on 6.10.2015. After a gap of about 5 years, a show cause notice has been issued on 03.09.2020. During the period of five years, the applicant was promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot Level - IV by letter dated 09.08.2018. Although the applicant was working in the department for a long time, his services may be terminated, as per law after enquiry, but natural justice requires that documents/ evidence sought by the charged official which were material to disprove the charges must have been produced during the enquiry or supplied to the employee concerned so that he may be in a position to explain the facts. In this matter author of the expert report has not been examined during enquiry. Thus, opportunity to cross-examine the author was not given to the charged official as has been quoted herein above. It is settled principle of law that expert report is mere an opinion and it is not a conclusive prove of fact until and unless author is examined and cross-examined in the matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that several material documents have been denied by the competent authority despite repeated demand made by the charged official. Thus, it can safely be held that proper and fair cannot be placed and entire enquiry proceeding adopted by the respondents is vitiated.
29. For the reasons stated herein above and in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble High Court, the instant Original Application is allowed. Impugned orders dated 24.06.2021 and 09.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 and 2 are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant -36- within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order and give all consequential benefits like pay, allowances etc. within two month. However, respondents will be at liberty to conduct denovo enquiry in accordance with law as has been discussed herein above after providing opportunity to the applicant. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
17. Shri H.P. Singh Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel assisted by Additional Standing Counsels appearing for respondents argued that-
(i) The Railway Board on 28.12.2018 issued major penalty chargesheet against the then Chairman, RRB, MFP on reports of investigation of cases of impersonation, high degree of fraud in recruitment pursuant to CEN No. 01/2014, ALP empanelled by RRB/MFP. So also, on direction of the Railway Board the thumb impression on OMR Sheets and declaration forms of all empanelled candidates as A.L.P. i.e. 1635 were examined by fingerprint examiner, ECR Danapur. The fingerprint examiner detected 125 cases of mismatch of thumb impression on OMR Sheets and on declaration forms. Such 125 cases sent to Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata for examination of documents i.e. OMR Sheets, attendance sheet of aptitude test and declaration forms I, II& III out of125 cases, CFSL- Forensic reports in which 109 cases reports against candidates and applicants are such candidates with adverse reports.
He further argued that Forensic Science reports are forensic science findings evidence from reputed govt. agency based on sound reasons from well recognized Govt. of India under Ministry of Home. The applicants do not have any material to controvert and rebut forensic evidence. The major penalty chargesheet has been issued under sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968. There is no specific provision under Rules 1968 particularly when enquiry as in present case where inquiring authority is conducting as provided under sub-rule (10)of Rule 9 of Rules to mention mandatorily names of witnesses in charge sheet. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
(ii) It is a case where clear documentary evidence exists in forensic findings from expert reports from recognised Govt. Institutions like Directorate of Forensic Science CFSL Kolkata result of well recognised and established processes. Expert reports are itself sufficient evidence and -37- producing in due course of business after following procedure under Rules 1968 and on principle of preponderance of probability which is applicable in disciplinary proceedings. The mismatch in forensic findings in these cases well established constitutes some evidence and present cases cannot be considered to be of no evidence. Hence no interference is warranted and high level of fraud of impersonation cannot be overlooked. So also interference on technicalities not warranted with impugned orders of executive authorities in disciplinary matter. As any inference in such matters would be adverse to impact on efficiency and public purposes.
(iii) The applicants continued for more than five years the handwriting and finger prints expert reports did not match of applicants during written exam and documents verification. The forensic evidence result of recognized and established scientific processes. The applicants not been able to rebut allegation. "Onus" was on applicant to prove his innocence. Once it has been established there is evidence of fraudulent and illegal means to get selected in Railway service, applicants did not appear in written exam secured job by fraud and deprived some other eligible persons. The fraud committed will deprive the applicants of all advantages obtained and no equity lies in their favour.
(iv) Shri H.P. Singh further argued that the scientific expert reports are of Central Forensic Science Laboratory in the present cases. The scientific expert reports of evidence of CFSL under law and under Section 293 of Cr.PC is acceptable as evidence within meaning of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act. The CFSL reports are scientific evidence recognized in eyes of law as piece of evidence, admissible in due course of business. The CFSL reports produced before Inquiry officer in original inspected and received by applicants is admitted fact. The CFSL reports produced are documentary evidence and is evidence not merely document. The section 293 of Cr.PC recognizes Govt. Scientific expert report in course of any proceeding as evidence. The CFSL is government scientific expert recognized in sub- section (4) of Section 293 of Cr.PC recognized govt. scientific expert report in course of any proceeding as evidence. The CFSL is government scientific expert recognized in Sub-section (4) of Section 293 CrPC as expert report to be used as evidence in court of law. Mr. H.P. Singh further submitted that govt. scientific expert report as in present cases is admissible as evidence produced in due course of business without examining the maker thereof.
-38-Enactment of Section 293 Cr.PC exception to mode of proof, execution or creation of a document. In the present cases thus burden lies on applicants to prove themselves innocent to prove the fact that they themselves written exam not by impersonators.
Shri H.P. Singh, Ld. CGSSC placed reliance on Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Shiv Chandra Nigam Versus the District reported in (2004) 1 UPLBEC 170 reliance placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court case in Orissa Mining Corporation & Anr. Versus Anand Chandra Prusty (1996) 11 SCC 600 in Para 6, onus lies upon applicants to prove themselves innocent. The strict rules of Evidence Act not applicable all times on prosecution to prove charge. The section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proving fact especially within knowledge of any person, the burden lies of proving that fact is upon that person. The applicants did not appear in written exam is the fact applicants could have proved otherwise that charge of fraud by impersonation levelled was without any foundation. But applicants were not even in position to respond appropriately. On technicalities applicants want to escape from clutches of law by twisting arms of law, wherein they are involved in high level of fraud by impersonation securing govt. job, someone else appeared on their behalf in examination.
(v) Shri H.P. Singh, Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel assisted by Additional Counsels appearing in respective cases for respondents relied on judgments, orders summarized as under:-
(a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. versus Om Prakash Lal Srivastava reported in (2002) 3 SCC 803.
Relevant para-16, 17 & 21 reads as:-
16. "On having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court has fallen into an error in coming to the conclusion in the impugned judgment and directing, once again the matter to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to now seek opinion of a hand writing expert."
17. We would like to emphasize at the threshold that there are certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may refer to the judgment of this court in GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/S Alstom Projects Ltd.) versus A. Aziz 2020 SCC Online SC 782. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record, there is no occasion for the High Court to get into the merits of the controversy as an appellate court. That too, on the aspect of an opinion formed in respect of two sets of signatures where the inquiry was held by an officer of the Bank who came to an opinion on a bare comparison of the signatures that there is a difference in the -39- same. It has been looked at from the perspective of a "banker's eye."
This is, of course, apart from the testimony of the sister-in-law of the respondents.
21. The High Court appears to have applied the test of criminal proceedings to departmental proceedings while traversing the path of requirement of a hand writing expert to be called for the said purpose. This would go contrary to the settled legal position enunciated by this court. It would suffice for us to refer to a recent judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 wherein it has been observed while referring to earlier judicial precedents, that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Shri H.P. Singh, Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel emphasized that in above case the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that inquiry officer had opined that while observing the admitted signatures in comparison with the signatures in question from a banker's eye it could be said that there is absence of similarity. Mrs. Meera Srivastava claim was that even account was opened fraudulently without her ever visiting the bank. The appellant before Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted that Hon'ble High Court Allahabad fell into error in applying the standard of proof of criminal proceedings to disciplinary proceedings as the misconduct by an employee in disciplinary proceedings is to be evaluated on the basis of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. There was sufficient evidence to show that respondent committed fraud and forgery by manipulating the signatures of the complainant opening an account and appropriating money.
Whereas respondent employee submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court that case not proved in departmental enquiry, no evidence had been led and reliance could not be placed only on documents.
(b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus Dilip Paul (Supreme Court) reported in 2023 (3) S.L.J. 445. Relevant para 92 & 93 reads as under:-
(ii) Standard of proof in Disciplinary Proceeding.
92. In another decision of this Court in West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd. ) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729, it was held that a departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd) versus Ram Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC held that in a departmental inquiry the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and -40- not beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant observation made in it are given below:-
"20. The Tribunal has set-aside the report of the Inquiry officer and the order of dismissal passed by the punishing authority by observing that the charges against the respondents were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has repeatedly been held by this court that the acquittal in a criminal case would not operate as a bar for drawing up of a disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the one is disciplinary proceeding while the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probabilities."
(C) The Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India & Ors. versus Narendra Kumar Pandey reported in 2013 (2) SCC 740. Relevant para 21 & 24 reads as:-
20. We are of the view that the High Court has committed an error in beholding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the details of the documents and the names of the witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that effect should have been appended to the charge-sheet. We may point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge-
sheet, in other words, is not expected to be a record of evidence. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the Service Rules.
22. We are of the view that the High Court also committed an error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of the charges, it was a case of no evidence. In an ex parte inquiry, in our view, if the charges are borne out from the documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges. When the charged officer does not attend the inquiry, then he cannot contend that the inquiring authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. Of course, even in an ex parte inquiry, some evidence is necessary to establish the charges, especially when the charged officer denies the charges, uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to prove the charges.
28. We are also conscious of the fact that even if the inquiring authority set the charged officer ex parte that would not absolve him from deciding that b the charges levelled against him were proved or not. In other words, no punishment could be imposed without an inquiry. We notice in this case that the inquiring authority had elaborately considered the charges levelled against the charged officer and also the materials produced by the Bank because some evidence is necessary to establish the charges. In some cases proof may only be documentary and in some cases oral. The requirement of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant Bank in this case has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the delinquent officer and was rightly dismissed from service which called for no interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-41-(d) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Amar Singh Verma Versus Union of India, W.P. (c) No. 4813 of 1998 decided on 10th July 2013. The relevant Para 586 reads as under:-
5. Before proceeding further, It is necessary at this stage to refer to the ratio of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey 2013 (2) SCC
740. In this judgment the Supreme Court has held that once the record comes before the Enquiry Authority, there is no formal need to prove the said record. Supreme Court has observed that strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply in departmental proceedings. It was held that in exparte proceedings charges would stand proved from the documents which were maintained in the normal course of business and no oral evidence is necessary to prove those documents. Putting it differently it is held that uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to prove the charges. On the facts of that case Supreme Court held that documents which were not controverted by the charged official were sufficient in themselves to prove the charges against the officer concerned. Supreme Court has reiterated that in departmental enquiries, Disciplinary Authority is expected to see that the charges are proved not beyond all reasonable doubt but only on preponderance of probabilities. Paras 22 and 23 of the said judgment read as under:-
"22. We are of the view that the High Court also committed an error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of charges, it was a case of no evidence. In an ex parte inquiry, in our view, if the charges are borne out from documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges. When the charged officer does not attend the inquiry, then he cannot contend that the Inquiring Authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. of course, even in an ex parte inquiry, some evidence is necessary to establish the charges, especially when the charged officer denies the charges, uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to prove the charges.
23. The Inquiring Authority has examined each and every charge levelled against the charged officer and the documents produced by the presenting officer and came to the conclusion that most of the charges were proved. In a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court reported in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur and R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab. The documents produced by the bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer, supports all the allegations and charges levelled against the charged officer. In a case, where the charged officer had failed to inspect the documents in respect of the allegations raised by the bank and not controverted it is always open to the Inquiring Authority to accept the same. (underlining added).
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 has held that strict rules of Evidence Act and the standards of proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings in a domestic Tribunal and it is open to the authorities to receive and place on record documents and acceptable materials which are strictly not in conformity with the Evidence Act.
16. Finally, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been exonerated in the criminal case and therefore the orders of -42- the departmental authorities have to be set aside for this reason. Though this is not a ground in the petition yet let us examine the same. This argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is also misconceived because the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that the scope of enquiries before a Criminal Court and in the Departmental Proceedings are totally separate. Whereas in the criminal proceedings the charges have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but, in the departmental proceedings the charges have to be proved only on preponderance of probabilities.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case cannot mean that on this ground itself petitioner will stand exonerated and orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority have to be quashed for this reason only because the charges against the petitioner independently stands established in the departmental proceedings.
(e) In case of Satish Kumar Versus Government of NCT of Delhi, OA No. 912/2018 decided on 19.01.2012:-
Learned coordinate Bench of Principal Bench of this Tribunal held that on the principle of preponderance of probability applicable in departmental enquiry and expert evidence report even without cross- examination of maker of expert report, there being some evidence of expert report produced in the inquiry case cannot be inferred as perverse on based on no evidence. The Learned Tribunal held that applicant's involvement and departmental enquiry is to enforce proper conduct in public service cannot be overlooked on merely technicalities.
(f) The Division Bench of this Tribunal at Ranchi in OA No. 39 of 2015 Lallan Prasad Vs. SAIL & Ors. and OA No. 20 of 2015 decided identical similar issue on 27.11.2015 and dismissed the OAs. The Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP(s) No. 4095 of 2016 Lallan Prasad Versus SAIL & Ors. vide order dt. 30.06.2017 upheld the order dt. 27.11.2015 of this Tribunal in OA No. 39/2015 and binding on this Tribunal to follow the ratio. Relevant para 13 reproduced as:-
13. Here in the instant case, we find that even from the records of the case which has been annexed in the writ petition by the petitioner, the signature clearly shows that they do not tally each other. It is crystal clear that it has been signed by different persons. It is clear cut case of impersonation. Fraud has been proved. There are catena of decisions which says that in case of fraud, the principles of natural justice is not attracted but in the instant case though it is case of fraud, ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner to prove his innocence but it has been proved that signature is not of the writ petitioner. It is established law that fraud vitiates everything. Based on the observation, very comfortably it can be inferred that the petitioner was given copy of proceedings and petitioner furnished reply thereof and in our view, principles of natural justice has been fully complied with.
Mr. H.P. Singh, Ld. Sr. CGSC submits that the present case is squarely covered by law laid down in case of Lallan Prasad (supra) by Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand at Ranchi, law laid down by Coordinate Bench of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in case of Satish Kumar OA -43- No. 912/2010 (Delhi CAT) and Division Bench of this Tribunal in case Pramod Kumar (supra) upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Patna.
(g) The Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 295 of 2013 Vinod Kumar Versus UOI & Ors. (Patna) decided on 07.09.2017. So also in OA No. 740/2013 Pramod Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors., so also in OA no. 830/2013, OA No. 832/2010, OA No. 814/2014 OA No. 295/2013 and OA No. 200/2014. This Tribunal in above similar cases accepted fingerprint reports as sufficient proof of identity and dismissed OAs. The Hon'ble High Court at Patna in CWJC No 456/2015 challenging common order dt. 22.10.2014 in OA Nos. 740, 787 of 2013 and other OAs on observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Preeti Yadav Versus U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 311 has upheld order dt. 22.10.2014 passed by this Tribunal.
(h) The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of Dr. Shailendra Singh Versus Union of India and others in WP No. 20076 of 2020 decided on 12th June, 2023 placing reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed reads as:-
(12) Shri Ganguly submits that it is a case in which the prosecution was not required to prove the charge but onus lies upon the petitioner to prove himself innocent. The petitioner could very well proved that the mark-sheets were genuine and not fake. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court ie (Orissa Mining Corporation and another Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty) reported in (1996) 11 SCC 600 in which the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
6. On a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us hereinabove viz, that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of proof, always bring upon the department in a disciplinary enquiry. The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charges.
In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanation. For example take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondent's case was that those notings were based upon certain documents. produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those other employees in the office to show that their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong notings made by the respondent.
(13) He submits that the Supreme Court has rightly observed that burden of prove depends upon the nature of explanation and nature of charges. He has also relied upon several judgments showing scope of interference in a matter of departmental enquiry.
(15) I am convinced with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation (Supra) on which counsel for respondents has placed reliance wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in each and every case it is not the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge-but in some cases the delinquent has to prove himself.
-44-(16) I am convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable in a matter of departmental enquiry in strict sense at the same I am also of the view that all the time burden does not lie upon the prosecution to prove the charge. For ready reference Section 106 of Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.Â"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
(17) In the present case, it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that the mark-sheets produced by him alleged to have been fake. He could have proved that the charges levelled against him are without any foundation by showing original mark sheet but that has not been done. (18) The Allahabad High Court in (Shiv Chandra Nigam Vs. The District) reported in (2004) 1 UPLBEC 170 relying upon a case of Orissa Mining Corporation(supra) has observed that looking to the charges levelled against the delinquent which was based upon documentary evidence burden lies upon the delinquent/officer and declined to interfere in the order of punishment. In the said case, petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that neither any date of enquiry was fixed nor any witness was examined to prove the charge. The delinquent was not given any personal hearing and opportunity to defend himself, therefore, order of dismissal passed by the District Magistrate was said to be illegal. (19) The Supreme Court in several occasion has observed that when a person secured appointment on the basis of forged mark-sheet or certificate then his appointment is considered to be a fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment is illegal void abinitio, therefore, holding the disciplinary proceeding envisaged under Article 311 of Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules is not required. The fact which goes to the root of the matter is that the mark-sheets used by the petitioner to get the appointment were fake and he could have produced the original mark- sheets to substantiate that the allegations made against him are not correct but that has not been done."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Murari Lal Versus State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531: 1980 SCR (2). Their Lordships held in Para 249 reads as under -
" There is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law that opinion evidence of hand writing expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. But having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted."
18. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
19. The admitted facts are that all the applicants in these cases submitted candidatures for the post of ALP G.P. Rs. 1900/- pursuant to Employment -45- notice no. CEN No. 01/2014 of RRB, Muzaffarpur, written examination held on 15.06.2014 and on different dates aptitude test and document verification held. The applicants admittedly received copy of chargesheet alongwith complete set of relied upon documents, statement of articles of charges, statement of imputation of charges, list of documentary evidence i.e. report of Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs Kolkata dt. 04.02.2020, report of Departmental fingerprint examiner dt. 19.03.2019, copy of CEN No. 01/2014 with list of witnesses-nil. All the applicants submitted reply to the chargesheet, participated in the disciplinary proceedings, copy of proceedings provided. It is also undisputed that all applicants after participating in the inquiry, submitted written brief, received copy of inquiry report submitted defence brief to Inquiry officer and disciplinary authority. There is no dispute as to competency of authorities as to issue of chargesheet and impugned orders of penalty.
20. The main dispute in the present cases that memorandum of charges issued under Rule 9 of Rules 1968 did not provide list of witnesses of authors of report of Director, Central Foresnsic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata and report of departmental finger print examiner. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondents during course of inquiry did not produce any witness and in absence witnesses charges could not have been found proved. The stand of the applicants that authors of forensic expert reports neither been examined nor cross-examination by applicants hence forensic science evidence is to be overlooked altogether as case of no evidence. Whereas stand of the respondents that the Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
21. From the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and material on record the core issue arises before us for consideration:-
"whether in the facts and circumstances of cases on hand due to non- examination, of authors of report of Director, Central Foresnsic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata and report of departmental finger print examiner in the disciplinary proceeding would render cases on hand of no evidence vitiating proceedings? Keeping in mind that findings and the conclusion of the guilt based on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond doubt."-46-
FINDINGS
22. The Legal position relating to the scope of interference in departmental proceedings by way of exercising power of judicial review is well settled particularly with respect of admissibility of evidence and the findings arrived by the administrative authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments on this issue in State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Rattan Singh 1982 1LLJ 46 SC, No Rajarathinam Versus State of Tamil Nadu (1997) 1 LJ 224 (SC), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Srinath Gupta, (1997) 1 LabLJ 677, High Court of Judicature, Bobay Vs. Uday Singh (1997) 5 SCC 129, Noida Enterprises Association Vs. Noida & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 385 has summarized law that disciplinary proceedings is distinct from a criminal trial where the Indian Evidence Act or Criminal Procedure Code is strictly applicable. The strict adherence, technical rules of evidence are not applicable in departmental enquiry and standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probability as all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible and strict and sophisticated rules of Indian Evidence Act may not apply to prove beyond doubt as required in the criminal proceedings. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to maintain discipline and efficiency in public service, whereas purpose of criminal trial relates to violation of law.
23. So also Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in cases of State of Tamil Nadu Versus S. Subramaniam (1996) 7 SCC 509, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302, UPSRTC Vs. Ram Chandra Yadav, J.T. 2000(8) SC 198, M.P.S.A.I.D.C Vs. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88 that the Tribunal ordinarily does not interfere in matters related to disciplinary proceedings and interference is on limited unless the findings arrived are absolutely based on no evidence or totally perverse in the sense that no man of ordinary prudence could possibly arrive at such findings/conclusions in facts and circumstances of the case. The power to impose appropriate penalty on Govt. employee is within domain of the administrative authorities. Hence the Tribunal/Court ordinarily does not interfere by way of re-appreciating the evidence adduced by the inquiry officer and substitution own findings/conclusions for that of administrative authorities unless it is found that findings are based on no evidence, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of statutory provisions, if it is found -47- that disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted fairly or penalty is shocking disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
So also Hon'ble Supreme court in case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749: AIR 1996 SC 484 has held as under:-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.
14. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas when the order of transfer was interfered with by the Tribunal, this Court held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The Tribunal could not, in such circumstances, interfere with orders of transfer of a government servant. In Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not -48- an appellate authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. Recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow a Bench of this Court of which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of authority."
[Emphasis supplied] Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 has held-
"4. On a consideration of the entire materials placed before the authorities, they came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. When a writ petition was filed challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal, the High Court interfered with the order of dismissal on the ground that the acts complained of were sheer mistakes or errors on the part of the respondent herein and for that no punishment could be attributed to the respondent. In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court quashing the order of dismissal is nothing but an error of judgement. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal is noting but an error of judgement. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of dismissal and granting continuity of service with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. As already noticed, the charges are very serious in nature and the same have been proved beyond any doubt. We have also carefully gone through the enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority and of the Tribunal and we are unable to agree with the reasons given by the High Court in modifying the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In short, the judgment of the High Court is nothing but perverse. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authority ordering dismissal of the respondent herein from service."
[Emphasis supplied] Standard of proof in Disciplinary Proceedings
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd) versus Ram Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC held that in a departmental -49- inquiry the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant observation made in it are given below:-
"20. The Tribunal has set-aside the report of the Inquiry officer and the order of dismissal passed by the punishing authority by observing that the charges against the respondents were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has repeatedly been held by this court that the acquittal in a criminal case would not operate as a bar for drawing up of a disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the one is disciplinary proceeding while the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is preponderance of probabilities."
[Emphasis supplied]
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment dated 19.01.2022 in case of Indian Overseas Bank & Ors versus Om Prakash Lal Srivastava reported in (2002) 3 SCC 803 Relevant para-16, 17 & 21 reads as:-
16. "On having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court has fallen into an error in coming to the conclusion in the impugned judgment and directing, once again the matter to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to now seek opinion of a hand writing expert."
17. We would like to emphasise at the threshold that there are certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We may refer to the judgment of this court in GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/S Alstom Projects Ltd.) versus A. Aziz 2020 SCC Online SC 782. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record, there is no occasion for the High Court to get into the merits of the controversy as an appellate court. That too, on the aspect of an opinion formed in respect of two sets of signatures where the inquiry was held by an officer of the Bank who came to an opinion on a bare comparison of the signatures that there is a difference in the same. It has been looked at from the perspective of a "banker's eye." This is, of course, apart from the testimony of the sister-in-law of the respondents.
21. The High Court appears to have applied the test of criminal proceedings to departmental proceedings while traversing the path of requirement of a hand writing expert to be called for the said purpose. This would go contrary to the settled legal position enunciated by this court. It would suffice for us to refer to a recent judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 wherein it has been observed while referring to earlier judicial precedents, that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
[Emphasis Supplied] The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. Versus Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (Supra) and in Union of India Versus Dilip Paul (Supra) that disciplinary proceedings must be examined on broader probabilities preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt -50- otherwise said purpose would go contrary to settled legal position enunciated by Apex Court.
26. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay versus Shashi Kant S. Patil and another, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme court 22 (FB) has held reads as -
"The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution."
[ Emphasis supplied] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent decision in case of State Bank of India versus A.G.D. Reddy, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064 Their Lordships held in para 42 held reads as under
"42. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not of any evidence.
If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court."
[ Emphasis supplied]
27. Thus in disciplinary inquiry the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and this Tribunal only to interfere where the findings are either perverse or based on no evidence at all. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle of law in mind, we must look into some relevant portion of the evidence taken into consideration by Inquiry officer for arriving at the conclusion that charges are held to be proved.
28. In these batch of cases to appreciate the core issue, it is relevant to analyse that pursuant to centralized employment notice no. 01/2014 for ALP and Technician categories published on 18.01.2014 by RRB, Muzaffarpur with impersonation warning reproduced as under:-
14.Impersonation/suppression of facts warning 14.01 No candidate should attempt impersonation or take the help of any impersonator at any stage of the selection process. Such candidates will be debarred for life from appearing in all RRB exams as well as debarred from any appointment in railways, in addition legal action will be taken against the candidates.
[Emphasis supplied] -51- The aforesaid para 14 impersonation warning in the centralized employment notice is clear that if any candidate taken any help of any impersonator in the selection process for post of ALP. Such candidates will be debarred from any appointment in Railways, debarred for life from appearing in all RRB Exams and in addition legal action will be taken against such candidates. The terms and conditions of said employment notice are clear as noon day binding on all that if any candidate secures appointments based on high level of fraud by way of impersonation and cannot be overlooked and could not claim appointment and continuance in employment as matter of right. The fraudulent act of impersonation will vitiate all solemn proceedings of selection process.
29. The written examination was held in year 2014, applicants were declared successful, aptitude test, and documents verification in year 2015 was done. The applicants were sent for medical test found fit thereafter in 2015 appointment orders issued on the post of ALP G.P. Rs. 1900/-. The applicants promoted in year 2017 as Sr. ALP G.P. Rs. 2400/-. The complaints were received and after investigation in year 2018, twelve cases of impersonation in written exam for recruitment to the post of ALP against CEN No. 01/2014 were detected by vigilance. The Railway Board on above investigation reports initiated major penalty chargesheet against the then Chairman, RRB/MFP. The authorities decided to scrutinize all answer-sheets of all declared successful candidates under CEN No. 01/2014.
30. The fingerprint impressions on OMR Sheets (questioned document) and declaration forms (specimen) of all 1635 empanelled ALP were examined by Fingerprint examiner, ECR, Danapur and 125 cases detected of mismatch of thumbs impressions on OMR Sheets with thumb impressions available on declaration forms. The such 125 cases were sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (in short GEQD), Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short CFSL), Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata for examination of documents i.e. OMR Sheets, Attendance Sheet of Aptitude Tests Declaration Forms I, II & III out of 125 cases, 109 cases of adverse reports. The reports of fingerprint examiner and CFSL reports of experts clearly established mismatch of thumb impression and handwriting and signature on the OMR Sheets taken during the exam. The clear case made out that applicants among others adopted unfair means and made imposters to sit in the exam to get employment in railways.
-52-31. The Section 45, 47 & 73 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to expert opinion. The Section 45 provides that opinion of experts as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, by specially skilled science to identify handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. The section 47 of the Evidence Act says opinion as to handwriting when in the normal course of business, documents written by person and submitted. The Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act lays down principle that in order to ascertain a signature, writing is that of the persons by whom it purports to have been written, any signature admitted and to the satisfaction of the court to have been written by that person may be compared with one which is to be proved.
32. The science of Fingerprints has developed enough and fingerprints also provide a conclusive piece of evidence with maximum degree of accuracy. The presence of fingerprint at the examination hall on the OMR Sheet and attendance sheet of applicants and fingerprints on declaration forms at time of documents verification is a positive evidence. The expert opinions specially science of identification of fingerprints are more reliable because science of fingerprints being (Annexure-A/3) exact science more reliable because with regard to fingerprints, it has never been found that two fingerprints are identical in all respects. The science of fingerprints reached a state of exactitude.
33. The Vigilance Branch, ECR sent on 03.08.2020 original copy of report of Director, CFSL Ministry Home Affairs, Kolkata dt. 04.02.2020. So also Vigilance, ECR vide letter dt. 11.08.2020 sent report of Department of fingerprint examiner dt. 19.03.2019. Thereafter Disciplinary Authority made up mind and on 16.09.2020 issued major penalty charge sheet under Rule 9 of Rules 1968.
34. The Rule 9 of Rules 1968 prescribes procedure for imposing major penalties. The memo of charges issued S.F.-5 issued under relevant sub-rule 10 of Rule 9 of Rules 1968 reproduced as under:-
(10) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority -
(i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Railway servant;
(iii) a copy of the statement of witnesses, if any, referred to in sub-rule (6);
(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents referred to in sub-rule (6) to the Railway servant;
(v) a copy of the order appointing the Presenting Officer, if any; and
(vi) a copy of the list of witnesses, if any, furnished by the Railway servant.-53-
[Emphasis supplied]
35. The gist of the allegations that applicants used fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with intention to secure employment in Railways. The relevant extract of SF-5 of charge sheet for easy reference as under:-
Sri Lala Thakur working as (Designation) Sr.ALP(D) under CCC/SGRL has committed misconduct is as much as that:
Article 1:
Sri Lala Thakur, while taking written Exam in June, 2014 for the post of ALP (Employment Notice No. CEN. No 01/2014 of RRB/Muzaffarpur) was supposed to appear in the Exam himself. However, Sri Lala Thakur indulged in malafide act of "impersonation and fraudulently made somebody else to appear in the Written Exam on his behalf.
Sri Lals Thakur had applied for the post of ALP in response to RRB/Muzaffarpur's Centralised Employment Notice No.01/2014 and after being found successful in Written Exam held on 15.06.2014, he was called for subsequent stages of recruitment viz. Aptitude Test/Verification of Document etc. He was finally empanelled and appointed as ALP in Dhanbad Division of ECR.As per conditions mentioned in the CEN.No.01/2014 and also as per Principle of any Competitive Exam, a candidate had to appear in the Written Exam himself/herself and any attempt of impersonation/Use of unfair means/Suppression of facts etc is strictly prohibited. But, as brought out in Forensic Report/Report of Finger Print Expert, Sri Lala Thakur did not appear in the Written Exam himself rather he arranged some Impersonator to appear in the Written Exam on his behalf. Therefore, Sri Lala Thakur obtained employment in Railway fraudulently by resorting to malafide means and not on his own merit for which he is responsible.
Article II:
The recruitment related documents of various candidates under suspicion including that of Sri Lala Thakur, Sr.ALP(D) underCCC/KRSL who were recruited in response to CEN. No. 01/2014 by RRB/Muzaffarpur were sent to GEQD viz Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. As per report of Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Kolkata dated 04.02.20, the blue enclosed writing of Sri Lala Thakur on declaration form No 1, II & III duly written by Sri Lala Thakur in RRB/Muzaffarpur on the date of Verification of Documents did not match the red enclosed writing sample in the OMR Answer sheet written on the date of Written Exam The report is based on cumulative consideration of various fundamental differences in handwriting characteristics of movement, skill, speed, relative size and proportion of letters and also on fundamental differences in the formation and execution between different letters. This forensic examination report clearly indicates that Sri Lala Thakur did not appear in the written Exam himself rather managed somebody else to appear in Written Exam on his behalf to secure appointment fraudulently.
Since 12 cases of Impersonation w.r.t candidates appointed in response to CEN.No.01/2014 were detected in year 2018 & 2019, it was decided to examine the entire Panel of CEN.No.01/2014. After thorough examination, all suspicious cases were sent for Forensic Examination to GEQD. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Kolkata after thorough Forensic Examination has sent Report pertaining to several -54- employees appointed in response to the said CEN.No.01/2014 according to which many candidates did not appear in Written Exam themselves and Sri Lala Thakur is one of them. As it has been established that Sri Lala Thakur did not appear in the Written Exam hirnself, Sri Lala Thakur secured employment in Railway as ALP fraudulently for which he is responsible.
Article III:
As per report of Departmental Finger Print Examiner, the thumb impression available on L the OMR Answer sheet/Attendance sheet did not match the thumb impression given by Sri Lala Thakur on declaration form submitted by him on the date of Document verification.
The thumb impression given by the person who appeared in the Written Exam is different from the thumb impression of Sri Lala Thakur who appeared in Document Verification. Thus, Sri Lala Thakur secured employment in Railway as ALP fraudulently for which he is responsible.
ANNEXURE III List of Documents vide which articles of charges framed against Lala Thakur Sr. ALP (D) working under CCC/SGRL are proposed to be substantiated.
1. Report of Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata dt 04.02.20.
2. Report of Departmental Finger Print Examiner dt 19.03.19.
3. Copy of CEN.No.01/2014.
ANNEXURE III List of witnesses by which article of charges framed against Sri Lala Thakur, Desig.Sr.ALP(D) working under CCC/KRSL are proposed to be substantiated.
Nil."
36. The nature of charges being specific that all applicants used fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with intention to secure employment. The expert opinion of CFSL report dt. 04.02.2020. Forensic science evidence and fingerprint examiner report dt. 19.03.2019 relied upon documents in charge sheet supplied with all annexures not disputed. Since provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable in matter of departmental inquiry. The burden of proof to prove lies on applicant to prove the fact that applicant did not take help of impersonator. Looking to nature of charges. The burden to prove was on the applicant that whether he himself appeared in written examination? The section 106 of the Evidence Act burden to prove the fact that applicants appeared himself in written exam lies upon applicants and not upon the prosecution. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. It is important that charges were levelled on documentary evidence of experts opinion reports produced in due course of business, onus lie on applicant to prove innocence.
-55-37. The admitted fact that SF05 major penalty charge sheet along with relied upon documents served on applicant. The nature of charges and expert opinion documentary evidence produced in due course of business. The charge sheet need not contain list of witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. The sub-Rule 10 of Rule 9 of Rules 1968 already extracted herein above in para no. 34 for ready reference and when inquiry authority is not himself disciplinary authority there is no specific mandatory provision to provide list of witnesses. Thus the impugned memorandum of charges, SF-5 is in accordance with Rule 9 of Rules 1968 and onus lies on applicant to prove that he himself taken written examination.
38. The disciplinary proceedings record reveals that major penalty charge sheet was issued on 16.09.2020 on alleged charges. The applicant on alleged charges filed reply dt. 26.09.2020. The applicant reply dated 26.09.2020 acknowledged receipt of memo-SF-5 and submitted that RRB panel was approved, unfairness certificate issued. The applicant was called for aptitude test on 22.09.2014 and document verification on 09.01.2015 and filled up declaration form I, II & III in own handwriting and had put signature. The applicant was appointed and if any doubt of identity should have been disallowed. The applicant submitted that memo-SF-5 is not sustainable as there is not a single PW in Annexure IV and RUD-Expert Reports without PW is dead evidence hence prayed to drop the enquiry proceedings.
The applicant filed reply on 26.09.2020 and did not demand any additional documents to put up his defence. On 06.10.2020, DEE/OP/DHN was appointed to function as disciplinary authority under Rule 13 of Rules 1968. So also on 06.10.2020, Mr. M.K. Dwivedi CLI as Inquiry Officer and Mr. M.K. Das CLI/GMD was duly appointed as presenting officer. The applicant was provided opportunities of hearing and applicant participated in inquiry and on due procedure inquiry was completed. The applicant reiterated submissions of his reply in inquiry but neither produced any list of defence witnesses to adduce evidence nor submitted any documents. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. The applicant in his own handwriting re-written six sentences and specimen signature as made in OMR Sheet at exam hall and -56- in declaration forms I, II, III at time of documents verification to compare writing and signature. The applicant on 10.12.2020 submitted written brief much emphasis laid on proving charges by prosecution with list of witnesses. The stand of applicants that in absence of PWs charges cannot be held to be proved. The applicant received copy of inquiry report dated 09.01.2021 and submitted written representation against enquiry report dt. 09.01.2021 received vide letter dt. 20.01.2021 and raised issue of non-supply of additional documents to him other than RUDS.
39. The applicant has been much emphasizing on the point throughout that during course of inquiry prosecution did not produce any witness and in the absence of any witness charges levelled against applicant could not have been found proved. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several occasion has observed that when any candidate secured appointment on fraudulent manner then his appointment is considered to be a fraudulent appointment. Therefore, holding the disciplinary proceeding envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules is not required. The applicant in all cases had been provided full and ample opportunities following procedure and principles of natural justice but could not produce single defence witness or any documentary evidence to substantiate that allegations are not correct.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that in a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Thus in exercising power of judicial review in disciplinary matters bearing in mind the aforesaid principle of law, we must look into some relevant portion of the evidence taken into consideration by the Inquiry officer in report dt. 09.01.2021 for arriving at the conclusion that charges are held to be proved:-
(a) The fingerprint examiner report dt. 19.03.2019 examined and verified thumb impressions affixed on the OMR sheets in written examination and thumb impression given by applicant on declaration forms at time of documents verification in RRB/MFJ did not match and are not identical.
(b) The Central forensic science laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Directorate of Forensic science services, Kolkata, forensic -57- examination report dt. 04.02.2020 after examining all original documents of the case in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery with scientific aid such as stereo-microscope and magnifiers available in Government of India, Kolkata found fundamental differences appearing in the questioned writing and signatures with respect to standard writings and signatures. The CFSL report dt. 04.02.2020 based on sound reasons Forensic findings from the recognized reputed government institution based on well established scientific processes.
The CFSL report, forensic expert evidence clearly established that applicant did not appear in the written examination himself rather managed somebody else to appear in written examination on his behalf to secure appointment fraudulently.
41. The aforesaid forensic analyst reports of fingerprint expert to establish identity of person from fingerprint most certain method of identification known to the modern science. The visible fingerprints on OMR sheet taken in examination hall did not match with fingerprints given himself by applicant on date of documents verification in declaration forms I, II & III in RRB/MFJ thus there is some piece of legal evidence on record conclusive evidence for identification. The Inquiry officer based on said forensic science expert opinion evidence arrived at conclusion that applicant did not appear in written exam and managed somebody else to appear on his behalf to secure appointment by adopting unfair means & fraud.
42. The handwriting expert report dt. 04.02.2020 from reputed government of India laboratory under Ministry of Home Affairs. The said forensic examination report, forensic findings result of established scientific processes, well-reasoned reports of the highest standard both in field of knowledge and in their unimpeachable integrity. The fingerprint expert reasoned report dt. 04.02.2020 also stands corroborated with conclusive evidence of fingerprint expert so far determining identity of person.
The questioned documents OMR Sheet of applicant sign, writing and thumb impressions did not match with specimen-declaration forms I, II & III given at time of documents verification at RRB/MFJ. The reports and exhibits are on record and under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act disputed writing and comparable material found were not by same person hardly needed expert guidance. The Inquiry officer during disciplinary proceeding also for comparison with handwriting and signature made in -58- presence of Inquiry officer, admitted handwriting of applicant. Thus it can safely be held that based on fingerprint expert and forensic examination reports of reputed institution that two writings, signature and thumb impression are not by same applicant. Thus applicant failed to establish that he himself appeared in written examination and selected with help of impersonator.
43. We are of the opinion that the Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. The aforesaid indicates that this is not a case of no evidence. Some legal evidence has come on record to indicate, substantiate allegations of fraudulent means by procuring impersonators to secure employment in railways and applicant failed to prove his innocence. We are also conscious of the factum that Law does not permit us to go into the sufficiency of evidence for the purpose of holding a public servant guilty of the alleged misconduct.
44. The disciplinary authority upon examination of records of inquiry agreed with findings of the Inquiry officer and imposed vide order dt. 18.02.2021 penalty of removal from service with immediate effect without any service benefits.
45. The applicant aggrieved by order dt. 18.02.2021 filed appeal agitating that prosecution did not prove charges and to prove RUD no PW were examined. The Appellate Authority vide order dt. 24.08.2021 dismissed the appeal and upheld order dt. 18.02.2021 removal from service. The Appellate Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority orders dt. 18.02.2021 and 24.08.2021 were challenged by filing revision-appeal. The revisionary authority vide final order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure-A/3) dismissed revision application upholding punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. The Revisionary Authority issued speaking order dt. 02.03.2022. The subordinate forum's decision of the Disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority merged into the final speaking order dt. 02.03.2022 and in eyes of law doctrine of merger common law doctrine only the latter order exists. The reasoned speaking order dated 02.03.2022 passed after due considerations of main contentions is also reproduced for ready reference:-
-59-Speaking Order "I have gone through the revision petition dated 02.09.2021 submitted by applicant along with the available records etc and observed as under:-
Shri Lala Thakur, Sin Sri Vijay Thakur, (Roll No 25141014043426) on being selected by PRB/MFP for the post of ALP(D) was appointed as ALP at Dhanbad division vide GM(P)/ECR/HJP's letter no ECR/HRD/RRB/Panel/2013-14 dated 17.03.2015 for further posting.
On being declared medically fit in medical category A-I and on completion of prescribed training period. Shri Lala Thakur, was posted at SGRL on pay Rs.7730/- plus usual allowance in PB Rs. 5200-20200/- GP Rs 1900/- vide office order No 3053/09/Posting/ALP(D)/2015 & Dkt No. E/Rectt./ALP(D)/15 dated 21.09.2015.
It came to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority that as per report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) dated 04.02.2020, it is seen that the writing of Shri Lala Thakur, during written examination does not match with the candidate as written at the time of document verification. It means the above named staff used fraudulent and illegal means to get himself selected in Railway Service.
On the basis of this investigation report of CFSL, a major penalty charge sheet (SF-5) was issued by Disciplinary Authority & DEE (OP)/DHN to Shri Lala Thakur, Sr.ALP(D)/SGRL on 16.09.2020 leveling the following charges-
"The original documents relating to the recruitment of the person called Shri Lala Thakur, of Roll No. 25141014043426 have been carefully and thoroughly examined with the help of available scientific instruments in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery. In my opinion
(i) Inter-se comparison of the blue enclosed writing stamped & marked S1 to S3 (on Declaration Form No. I, II & III) and red enclosed writing Q2 (on Attendance slip for Aptitude test) are all written by one and same person.
(ii) The writer of writings marked S1 to S3 (on declaration form no. I, II & III respectively) did not write, writings marked Q1 (on OMR sheet).
The above report clearly signifies that the original candidate Shri Lala Thakur had not appeared personally in the written examination conducted by RRB/MFP on 15.06.2014 for the post of ALP but he managed an impersonator who appeared in the said written examination in his place. Thus, by using such fraudulent and illegal means, Shri Lala Thakur got himself selected in railway service.
While taking examination of Assistant Loco Pilot by RRB,MFP (Cat No.1 of CEN No 01/2014 Shri Lala Thakur used fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with intention to secure Employment in the Railway through fraud and criminal means and as such the said act of Shri Lala Thakur amounted to a Conduct unbecoming of a Railway Servant being Violation of Rule 3.1 (i), (ii), (iii),
(vi) & (xviii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and Clause 14.04 of the Centralized Employment Notice No. 01/2014.
Shri M K Dwived, CLIDHN was nominated Inquiry Officer of this D&AR case and Ship MK Das, CLI/GMO as Presenting Officer. During enquiry the charges were substantiated. After that as per procedure laid down for coming to conclusion reasonable opportunity has been given to CO Sari Lala Thakur to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 09.01.2021 proved the charges leveled against Shri Lala Thakur, Ex Sr. ALP(D)/SGRL. Thus During enquiry the charges were substantiated.
Further, as per verification report of Finger print Examiner/ECR/Danapur, his finger prints are also not identical. This was also considered during enquiry.
After going through Inquiry Report, Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on 18.02.2021. The Appellate Authority cum Sr.DEE(OP)/DHN also upheld the punishment awarded by DEE(OP)/DHN cum Disciplinary Authority on 24.08.2021.
Now, Shri Lala Thakur, (Ex-Sr.ALP/D/SGRL) has submitted revision petition dated 02.09.2021 against the above removal order.
Undersigned has carefully gone through the revision petition and observations on different points raised by C.O are as under :-
During the enquiry, the applicant was given ample opportunity duly observing the Principle of Natural Justice to present his case and prove his innocence in which he failed. The Inquiry Officer has conducted impartial enquiry to the best of his ability. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report only after being influenced by the GM/ Vigilance. Therefore, the statement of the applicant is completely false and indecent.
All the points raised by the defense helper of the applicant and the applicant have been properly analyzed during the enquiry and there has been no violation of any kind of Natural Justice. The applicant and their defense assistant were given a chance during the entire enquiry.
The responsibility of the prosecution is not to prove the charges on the accused employee but to investigate the truth. The allegation is substantiated by credible documents (RUD) as mentioned in Annexure-III.
For a responsible post, it is essentially expected to have an impeccable character as detailed by the candidate in the declaration form at time of examination. Therefore, action has rightly been taken as per the provisions contained in Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.-60-
The RUD as indicated in Annexure-III is itself a credible document on the basis of which the Inquiry has been conducted.
The punishment has been given by the Disciplinary Authority after perusing the entire enquiry report of the Inquiry Officer and case file. The speaking order/Reasoned ender of the Disciplinary Authority has been enclosed with the punishment order. Hence the punishment awarded is justified.
After reviewing the entire case file and the appeal preferred by the appellant, the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal and confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority who has passed the order along with the reason and speaking order.
Government of India, Ministry of Railways Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur Centralized Employment Notice No 01/2014 for Assistant Loco Pilot & Technical categories, Date of publication - 18.01.2014 in General Instructions item No 14 (4.01), it is clearly mentioned.
"No candidates should attempt impersonation or take the help of any impersonator at any stage of the selection process. Such candidates will be debarred for life from appearing in all RRB examinations as well as debarred from any appointment in Railways in addition legal action will be taken against the candidates."
The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India who has been authorized to examine and deliver reports on the matters related with Forensic Examination. As such on the basis of the report of CFSL Shri Lala Thakur is not desirable to be retained in service.
The CO can not at all be retained in the Railway Service only because of the facts that he did not appear in the examination to qualify for the post rather deprived some other eligible and aspiring persons on his behalf. Shri Lala Thakur did not appear in the written examination himself rather managed somebody else to appear in written examination on his behalf to secure appointment fraudulently.
The post of ALP (D) is a safety category post and is filled up by positive act of selection including psychological test after being rendered and declared fit in prescribed medical category with: prescribed road learning and safety learning /refresher course. The safety of a large number of people is associated and it will be hazardous and dangerous to appoint and retain such fraudulent person who entered in Railway Service by means of an impersonator, which in turn not only effect the life of himself, but also large number of passengers associated with the movement of trains.
As per Department of Personnel and Training OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt(A) dated 19.05.1993 circulated by Railway Board vide letter No. E(D&A) 92 GS-4-3 dated 20.07.93 a Govt. Servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced false certificates in order to secure appointment should not be retained in service. If he is probationer or a temporary Railway servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Govt servant, an enquiry as prescribed in the D&A rules may be held and if the charges are proved, he should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances, should other penalty be imposed.
In view of the facts of the case mentioned above, the undersigned has decided that Shri Lala Thakur, (Ex-Sr ALP/D/SGRL) is not eligible to be retained in Railway Service, therefore, uphold the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority and order of Appellate Authority.
This is without prejudice."
[Emphasis supplied] The Revisionary Authority has passed well-reasoned order after due consideration of contentions and it is not case of applicants that experts reports not given, no malice in law. The opinion of CFSL forensic science examination report as well as of fingerprint expert report is opinion of experts legal evidence can be relied without even authors produced in inquiry. Hence, the expert opinion reports constitute some evidence already discussed herein above. Thus the present case is not case of no evidence. We are of considered view that impugned final order dated 02.03.2023, order dt. 18.02.2021 and order dated 24.08.2021 of removal from service as well as chargesheet and inquiry report deserve to be upheld and present OA devoid of merits no interference is warranted.
-61-46. We have already analysed in detail the issue in hand and found on record that there is clear evidence in expert opinion reports sufficient evidence. Strictly Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in disciplinary proceeding and in facts and circumstances of this case Indian Evidence Act not applicable. The standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt. Thus emphasis on non-production of authors of expert reports to prove expert opinion reports cannot be taken in isolation in view of totality of evidence produced during disciplinary inquiry in this case. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. So also the reasonable opportunity given, no violation of principles of natural justice, procedure prescribed for inquiry has been followed by the respondents. The applicants did not adduce any defence witnesses so also no list of DW given. In view whereof we find no case made out for interference.
47. The arguments advanced by Shri M.P. Dixit Ld. counsel for the applicants in sum and substances that (i) the major penalty chargesheet in all these cases issued under sub-rule (6) & (12) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968 and it is mandatory to provide list of witnesses to prove the allegations based on expert opinion reports (ii) The forensic evidence - CFSL report as well as fingerprint examiner report are to be proved by examination of the authors of forensic evidence-expert reports and applicants are to be given opportunity for cross-examination of these authors/makers of forensic evidence to be used against applicants. Since respondents have not produced authors of expert opinion reports for cross-examination by applicants, the expert opinion reports cannot be used against them being dead piece of evidence.
(iii) So also Inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority not supplied additional documents sought by filing application dated 16.09.2020 (Page 79 of OA) and further there are reference to the vigilance communications documents referred in inquiry report and same too were not supplied has resultantly rendered disciplinary proceeding full of illegalities and violation of principles of natural justice. Thus the present OA deserves to be allowed with consequential benefits.
48. Now again coming to the memorandum of charges issued in S.F. No. 5 under Rule 9 of the Rules 1968. The Sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules -62- 1968 provides that disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority following documents-
(i) Copy of articles of charge and statement of the imputations of misconduct
(ii) Copy of written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Railway servant,
(iii) A copy of statement of witnesses, if any, referred to in sub-rule (6).
(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents referred to in sub-rule (6) to the Railway Servant,
(v) A copy of appointing the presenting officer, if any and
(vi) A copy of the list of the list of witnesses, if any, furnished by the Railway servant.
We may in the light of above-mentioned statutory provision Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968 examine the first limb of vociferously canvassed argument on behalf of the applicants. Whether it is mandatory to provide list of witnesses to prove the allegations based on expert opinion reports of reputed govt. institutions well-recognised for unimpeachable integrity so also reasoned? Whether in absence of any list of witnesses charges levelled against applicants could not have been found proved in disciplinary inquiry?
We have already extracted hereinabove and at cost of repetition for ready reference already reproduced sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968 and analysed in detail and considered their import. We find that accordance with sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1969 the impugned charge sheet need not contain names or list of witnesses to prove expert opinion reports in disciplinary inquiry as we do not find a specific provision mandatory in nature under sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968 specifically when as in present cases admitted position inquiring authority is Inquiry officer appointed by disciplinary authority to conduct inquiry.
49. The above point agitated has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Versus Narendra Kumar Pandey reported in (2013) 2 SCC 740 dealing with pari-materia provision for ready reference both sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1968 related to present cases and pari-materia provision Rule 68 (2) (v) of State Bank of India officers service Rules framed under SBI Act, 1955 reads as :-
Rule 68 (2) (v) of State Bank of India Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 9 of RS (D & A) officers service Rules Rules 1968
(v) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where (10) The disciplinary authority shall, it is not the Inquiring Authority, forward to where it is not the inquiring authority, the Inquiring Authority:- forward to the inquiring authority -
(a) a copy of the articles of charge and statements of imputations of misconduct;-63-
(b) a copy of the written statement of (i) a copy of the articles of charge and defence, if any, submitted by the officer; the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of
(c) a list of documents by which and list of defence, if any, submitted by the witnesses by whom the articles of charge Railway servant;
are proposed to be substantiated; (iii) a copy of the statement of witnesses, if any, referred to in sub-rule
(e) evidence proving the delivery of the (6);
articles of charge under clause (iii);
(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the
(f) a copy of the order appointing the documents referred to in sub-rule (6) to "Presenting Officer" in terms of clause the Railway servant;
(d) a copy of statements of the witnesses, (v) a copy of the order appointing the
if any; Presenting Officer, if any; and
(g) State Bank of India Officers' Service (vi) a copy of the list of witnesses, if
Rules, 1992 `79 Note: The forwarding of any, furnished by the Railway servant.
the documents referred to in this clause
need not necessarily be done
simultaneously.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was also seisin with similar point that no witness examined by Bank in support of charges and held charges proved was in fact finding supported with no evidence? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20 held as under:-
"20. We are of the view that the High Court has committed (Annexure-A/3) error in holding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the details of the documents and the names of the witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that effect should have been appended to the charge-sheet we may point out that the chargesheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Chargesheet, in other words, is not expected to be a record or evidence. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses alongwith the chargesheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the service rules.
28. We are also conscious of the fact that even if the inquiring authority set the charged officer ex parte that would not absolve him from deciding that b the charges levelled against him were proved or not. In other words, no punishment could be imposed without an inquiry. We notice in this case that the inquiring authority had elaborately considered the charges levelled against the charged officer and also the materials produced by the Bank because some evidence is necessary to establish the charges. In some cases proof may only be documentary and in some cases oral. The requirement of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The appellant Bank in this case has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the delinquent officer and was rightly dismissed from service which called for no interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. In view of the abovementioned reasons, we find it difficult to support the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with no order as to costs."-64-
[Emphasis supplied]
50. Now we are dealing with the second limb of the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that forensic evidence of CFSL forensic examination report of handwriting, signature as well as fingerprint expert reports, though expert opinion are to be proved by examination of authors and opportunity to be granted to applicants to cross-examination of these authors as forensic evidence to be used against applicants. Since authors, witnesses to prove reports of expert not examined charges are not proved and these cases are of no evidence.
We have already analysed in preceding para 39 to 49 of this order and dealt with the above point vociferously canvassed by Mr. M.P. Dixit but at cost of repetition again deal in nutshell as point relates to the core issue involved in the present cases. The settled legal position that in a disciplinary proceedings the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.
The applicants have not challenged veracity of expert opinion reports, no malice in law so also it is not case of applicants that authorities being biased or any enmity. The forensic science examination report on handwriting and signature of applicant from recognized Govt. institution like CFSL result of well recognized and established processes so also fingerprint expert report to establish identity of applicant from fingerprint most certain method of identification known to the modern science and applicants presence at any place i.e. exam hall with certainty can be fixed. Under the both Section 45 and Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act the expert opinion is evidence. The expert opinion evidence is admissible as documentary evidence permitted by rules of law for purpose of proof in legal proceeding. The expert opinion reports in present cases can be relied on even without their being produced in the inquiry and without being examined and cross- examined.
The case of applicants do not relate to any malice in law or enimity of makers of expert reports. Thus taking into account above based on principles of preponderance of probabilities applicable in departmental inquiry findings of Inquiry officer and other authorities cannot be said to be based on no evidence. So also in details already analysed in proceeding paras 39 to 49 of this order. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material -65- evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
51. The legal issue in hand in the present case also stands qualified by judicial pronouncements. In case of Satish Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others, OA No.912/2010, decided on 19.01.2012 the Division Bench of Principal Bench of this Tribunal was in seisin with issue whether non-examination of author of Medical Report as a witness in departmental enquiry would vitiate the proceedings keeping in mind that in departmental proceedings, findings and the conclusion of the guilt of the applicant based on "preponderance of probability" and not on "proof beyond doubt." The Division Bench of Learned Tribunal on 19.01.2012 has held that case of applicant not of malice in law and opinion of an expert can be relied on even without his being produced in inquiry and without being cross examined by the applicant. The applicant's case is not of authority being biased or enmity.
The Learned Tribunal further held that on the principle of preponderance of probability which is applicable in departmental proceedings the findings/conclusions of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as of Appellate Authority in the present case cannot be inferred as perverse or based on no evidence at all. The Learned Tribunal also observed that important aspect that applicant involvement and departmental enquiry is to enforce proper conduct in public service and cannot be overlooked and interference on technicalities in disciplinary matter would be adverse impact on efficiency and public purpose. The Learned Tribunal held that it cannot be considered a case of no evidence, strictly Evidence Act is not applicable in disciplinary proceedings and such a course would be against settled legal preposition and dismissed the O.A.
52. So, also the Division Bench of this Tribunal at Ranchi in O.A. No.39/2015 Lallan Prasad Pandey Vs. SAIL & Ors. (Ranchi) against the termination order as well as appellate authority order has dismissed OA vide order dated 27.11.2015. The applicant thereafter filed W.P.(s) No.4095/2016 Lallan Prasad versus Steel Authority of India & Ors. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, their Lordships in detail dealt with similar issue to appreciate the facts in nutshell are that petitioner participated in advertisement for recruitment on the post of M.E. Operator. Written exam was held, selected and joined on the said post.
-66-On the service of complaints the Vigilance Department started investigation in which petitioner also had to appear. The respondent authorities tallied signature of the petitioner on the joining report vis-à-vis signature on the answer sheet, counter foil and thereafter reached to the conclusion that both the signature i.e. on joining report as also on the answer sheet, do not match, thereby creating a doubt about his appearance in the written examination and inference was drawn that his signatures do not match, creating doubt about his appearance in the written examination and accordingly, vigilance started investigation on the complaint and the petitioner called for sample signatures etc. During the enquiry the Vigilance Department tallied signature of petitioner on his joining report vis-à-vis sample signature given to vigilance and verified the same from the government examiner of questioned documents (GEQD), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Director of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata which on examining sample of signatures, gave a reasoned opinion that the person who had given sample signatures to the Vigilance Department and the person who had signed the joining report did not write the signature on the answer Sheet counter foil. The meaning thereby, the signatures before the Vigilance Department and signatures in the answer sheet did not tally at all as per the opinion of the experts.
On the basis of expert opinion charge Sheet was issued alleging misconduct. The petitioner filed written statement along with supporting documents to defence case. The Enquiry Officer held charge not proved and only on the basis of the opinion given by the GEQD, Kolkata, which does not relate with the circumstances mentioned in para-2 of the statement of allegations, petitioner cannot be held guilty.
The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that charges not proved and issued final notice for disagreement that importance of GEQD opinion has not been appreciated so also signature of petitioner on his coded counter foil of answer sheet, joining report and specimen signature provided to Vigilance Department at a glance also appears to mismatch which has been confirmed by GEQD. The petitioner submitted in reply to show cause that report of GEQD not scientific and dismissal order was passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority affirmed order of disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed -67- O.A.No.39/2015 (Ranchi and learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 27.11.2015. Thereafter present W.P. was filed.
The learned counsel for petitioner argued that there is no any legal evidence to implicate him merely on findings of Forensic Department, he cannot be held guilty of the charges. The Evidence Act not followed and report of Forensic Science Lab has been taken into considerations, which is against law. The learned counsel for applicant further argued that non- examination of invigilator as also the GEQD/Handwriting expert has vitiated the entire proceedings. It was also argued that non-examination of handwriting expert (GEQD), Kolkata, invigilator and petitioner's right to cross-examine them have violated Principles of Natural Justice.
Their Lordships in case of Lallan Prasad (supra) considered the similar issue and similar facts and has held as under:-
"12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and are of the considered opinion that the termination of the petitioner has been the end result of the duly conducted disciplinary proceeding in which the petitioner had been afforded proper opportunity to defend his case. We further find that the basis of the disciplinary action against the petitioner is the forensic evidence/ finding relating to the signature of the petitioner on the counter foil of the answer sheet and the signature on his joining report and the forensic examination has clearly established that there is a mismatch between the two signatures. The forensic findings from the recognized Government institution like the Directorate of Forensic Science, are the result of well recognized and established scientific processes and cannot be summarily rejected or ignored. We further find that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that the inquiry officer has attempted to summarily negate and brush aside the forensic evidence against the petitioner, there are obvious and serious issues of credibility and logic and that there appears to be ample justification in the decision of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the inquiry report on the grounds that the inquiry officer has not appreciated the conclusive evidence of the GEQD which is based on scientific tools and cannot merely be set aside without giving equally situated technical reasons. The petitioner has failed to establish the grounds on which the action by the respondents can be questioned or invalidated. The learned Tribunal has also rightly taken into consideration the rulings of the Apex Court to the extent that the courts should normally not substitute their own judgment in place of the findings of a duly conducted inquiry, nor should they interfere with them in the normal course unless there are clear violations of the principles of natural justice, statutory regulations, established procedures or unless there is malafide. We also do not find any instance substantiated by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned orders. In the instant case the petitioner furnished detailed explanation and we are of the view that the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with and we do not find any infraction of rules or infirmity in the decision of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority and the Judgment passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The 15 W.P.(S)No. 4095 of 2016 ` petitioner had made an effective representation and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not heard in the matter. The decisions cited by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner do not come to her rescue. The contention of learned Sr. Counsel that the petitioner was not given personal hearing is not acceptable in view of legal proposition in -68- case of J.A. Naiksatam (Supra) wherein Their Lordships have taken into consideration the Judgments passed in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra and further the Judgment passed in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra on the point of personal hearing and Their Lordships have held in para-6 and 7 that they did not find any infraction of rules or infirmity in the impugned decision. Their Lordships further held that disciplinary authority gave its reasons for disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer and the appellants had given their full-fledged explanation and if at all the disciplinary authority gave detailed tentative decision before seeking explanation from the appellants, it enabled them to give an effective representation and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and it cannot be said that the appellants were not being heard in the matter.
13. Here in the instant case, we find that even from the records of the case which has been annexed in the writ petition by the petitioner, the signature clearly shows that they do not tally each other. It is crystal clear that it has been signed by different persons. It is clear cut case of impersonation. Fraud has been proved. There are catena of decisions which says that in case of fraud, the principles of natural justice is not attracted but in the instant case, though it is case of fraud, ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner to prove his innocence but it has been proved that signature is not of the writ petitioner. It is established law that fraud vitiates everything. Based on the observation, very comfortably it can be inferred that the petitioner was given copy of proceedings and petitioner furnished reply thereof and, in our view, principles of natural justice has been fully complied with.
14. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, we find that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority. We further hold that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 in O.A. No. 051/00039/2015 has considered all the aspects and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority have considered all aspects before imposing such penalty.
15. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
53. In case of Pramod Kumar and others versus Union of India and others OA No. 740 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2014 held that in case of Ram Preeti Yadav versus U.P.Board of High School and 66 Intermediate Education and ors (2003) 8 SCC 311, their Lordships o the Hon'ble Apex Court held that once a fraud is proved, it will debar the person of all advantages and benefits obtained thereby and the applicant cannot raise the question of equity, the Tribunal further held that in the instant case the applicants applied high degree of fraud by resorting to impersonation. There can be hardly any material for the present applicants to challenge the opinion of the Government Examiner of Questionable documents. For running the administration some amount of trust has to be reposed on the Government agency, who are well trained in the matter and examining the documents scientifically to find out matching and mismatching. Though a Hand Writing Expert's opinion is a weak piece of evidence compared to other scientific examiners but there is hardly any material to suspect the integrity and efficiency of the handwriting expert in -69- question to take a different view. It may not be lost sight of the fact that when thousands of candidates appeared in the recruitment test only 525 cases could be detected where the candidates had practised fraud and impersonation for getting a job contrary to approved norms. It is neither a case of personal vendetta nor a case of determination calling for interference by this Tribunal. The batch of OAs was dismissed. The order dated 22.10.2014 in A No. 740, 787 of 2013 along with other OAs was challenged before Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No. 1686/2015 and 456 of 2015. Their Lordships dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24.11.2016.
So also in O.A. no. 830/2013, Ο.Α. No. 832/2010, O.A. No. 814/2014, Ο.Α. No. 295/2013, Ο.Α. No. 200/2014, Division Bench of this Tribunal at Patna has held that wherever finger print expert's opinion is available the Tribunal has accepted and accordingly several OAs have been dismissed in which the expert had opined that the finger print taken during written test did not match with the finger print taken during the document verification. In case of Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India O.A. No. 200/2014 (Patna) decided on 07.11.2017 held that report of finger print expert is regarded as a conclusive proof of identity of a person.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others versus Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 was dealing with contention that High Court pointed that no witnesses was examined by the Bank in support of the charges and hence to hold the charges relating to govt. business branch proved was in fact a finding supported with no evidence?
Their Lordships in para 22 of the judgment held as under:-
"22. We are of the view that the High Court also committed (Annexure-
A/3) error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of the charges, it was a case of no evidence." In (Annexure-A/3) ex- parte inquiry, in our view, if the charges are borne out from the documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges.
So also their Lordships held that "When the charged officer denies the charges, uncontroverted documentary evidence in such situation is sufficient to prove the charges."
[Emphasis supplied]
55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation and another versus Ananda Chandra Prusty reported in (1996) 11 SCC 600 has observed as under:-
"6. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us hereinabove viz, that there is no such thing as (Annexure-A/3) absolute burden of proof, -70- always lying upon the department in a disciplinary inquiry. The burden depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanation. For example take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false notings on account of which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondents case was that those notings were based upon certain documents produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In such a situation it is for the respondents to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those employees in the office to show that their acts or records could not have framed the basis of wrong notings made by the respondents."
[Emphasis supplied]
56. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of Dr. Shailendra Singh Versus Union of India and others in WP No. 20076 of 2020 decided on 12th June, 2023 placing reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed reads as:-
"15. I am convinced with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation (Supra) on which counsel for respondents has placed reliance wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in each and every case it is not the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge-but in some cases the delinquent has to prove himself.
(16) I am convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable in a matter of departmental enquiry in strict sense at the same I am also of the view that all the time burden does not lie upon the prosecution to prove the charge.
For ready reference Section 106 of Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.Â"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
(17) In the present case, it was was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that the mark-sheets produced by him alleged to have been fake. He could have proved that the charges levelled against him are without any foundation by showing original mark sheet but that has not been done. (18) The Allahabad High Court in (Shiv Chandra Nigam Vs. The District) reported in (2004) 1 UPLBEC 170 relying upon a case of Orissa Mining Corporation(supra) has observed that looking to the charges levelled against the delinquent which was based upon documentary evidence burden lies upon the delinquent/officer and declined to interfere in the order of punishment. In the said case, petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that neither any date of enquiry was fixed nor any witness was examined to prove the charge. The delinquent was not given any personal hearing and opportunity to defend himself, therefore, order of dismissal passed by the District Magistrate was said to be illegal. (19) The Supreme Court in several occasion has observed that when a person secured appointment on the basis of forged mark-sheet or certificate then his appointment is considered to be a fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment is illegal void abinitio, therefore, holding the disciplinary -71- proceeding envisaged under Article 311 of Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules is not required. The fact which goes to the root of the matter is that the mark-sheets used by the petitioner to get the appointment were fake and he could have produced the original mark- sheets to substantiate that the allegations made against him are not correct but that has not been done."
[Emphasis supplied]
57. In view whereof, we can safely hold that looking to the charges levelled against applicants based on expert reports-documentary evidence legally admissible as evidence produced in due course of business without oral evidence for purpose of proof in legal proceedings that two handwritings, signatures and thumb impression, are not by the same person and applicants did not appear in written exam. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. The onus to disprove lie on applicants. The disciplinary proceeding initiated to enforce proper conduct in public interest. The conduct established did not entitle them to continue in service. Thus the issue is decided against all applicants.
58. So far as the third limb of argument of the counsel appearing for all applicants in identical cases that documents sought other than RUD i.e. unfairness certificate given by invigilator, roll call sheet, admit card, F.I.R. addresses of invigilators. It is not disputed in these cases that Inquiry officer in these cases after providing full opportunity of hearing and following procedure as per Rules 1968 based on expert opinion reports of CFSL in due course of business on handwriting and signature mismatch and on fingerprint expert report mismatch on OMR sheet during written exam and on declaration forms I, II & III at time of documents verification by applicants did not match. The Inquiry officer given applicants full opportunity to rebut but applicants failed to prove themselves innocent. The Inquiry officer conclusion is reproduced for ready reference reads as :-
निष्कर्ष उपरोक्त निष्कर्ष पर पहुुँचिे हे तु युक्क्त में प्रस्तुत बिन्दओ ु ं के आधार पर श्री लाला ठाकुर व0/सहा0 लो०पा०/ससंगरौली के ववरूद्ध िडी शाक्स्त अधधरोवपत मािक फामष- 5 के अिुिन्ध । में लगाये गये आरोप GM/Vigilance/ECR/HJP से प्राप्त ददिांक 04.02.2020 के CFSL के ररपोर्ष के अिुसार ऐसा पाया गया है कक श्री लाला ठाकुर जो धििाद मण्डल में व०स०लो०पा० के रूप में कायष कर रहे हैं का चयि रे लवे भती िोडष मुज़फ्फरपुर द्वारा ददिांक 15.06.2014 को आयोक्जत सलखित परीक्षा में पररूपधारक (Impersonator) की सहायता से हुआ।-72-
सलखित परीक्षा के दौराि श्री लाला ठाकुर की लेिि और दस्तावेज सत्यापि के दौराि उिका लेिि आपस में मेल िहीं िा रहा है इसके अनतररक्त कफं गर वप्रन्र् परीक्षक / पूवष मध्य रे ल / दािापुर ददिांक 19 03.2019 के ररपोर् के अिुसार श्री लाला ठाकुर की कफं गर वप्रिर् भी एक समाि िहीं है । आरोवपत कमषचारी के द्वारा कोई भी ऐसा दस्तावेज / प्रलेि प्रस्तत ु िहीं ककया गया है क्जससे उिकी निदोसशता साबित हो।
अतः िडी शाक्स्त में लगाया गया आरोप सत्य प्रतीत होता है , जो रे ल सेवक के सलये अशोभिीय है । इस प्रकार रे ल सेवा (आचरण) नियम वर्ष-1966, धारा-3 (1) का (I), (III), (VI) एवं (XVIII) का उल्लंघि है ।
[Emphasis supplied]
59. The counsel for applicants also contended that documents referred in inquiry reports not supplied. i.e. ECR/VIG/V-Z/C/NG/RRB/MFP/02- 18/PC/DK/28/PT III dt. 03.08.2020, ECR/VIG/V-Z/NG/RRB/MFP/02- 18/DK/PT III dt. 11.08.2020 and CFSL (K) /EE/2019/DOC/BR/1072/DXC- 166/2019 dt. 29.11.2019 and ECR/VIG/V-Z/C/MISC dt. 07.06.2019. The Inquiry officer report as extracted for ready reference. The Inquiry Officer has observed that charges have been framed considering production of experts reports during due course of business. On perusal of record carefully it is evident that vigilance investigated on complaints and submitted through above referred communications, material to disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority on independent application of mind drawn statements of articles of charges, imputation of charges, list of documents vide which articles of charges framed against applicants as provided in S.F. 5 Annexure III already extracted hereinabove, is clear as noon day so also the conclusion of inquiry report and inquiry report in entirety on minute examination it is undisputed that Inquiry officer based findings on RUD supplied produced in due course of business i.e. CFSL reports and fingerprint examiner, copy of CEN No. 01/2014.
The additional documents referred not supplied to applicants have not caused any prejudice and not pleaded prejudice. So also the applicants have not raised any prejudice having been caused as on record as extracted hereinabove conclusion on Inquiry officer purely based on CFSL Forensic Science examination reports and fingerprint examination reports and on any documents. Though Inquiry officer in addition it seems from record of inquiry also taken aid of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act asked applicants to re-write para and put signatures as in the examination.
The applicants have miserably failed discharge onus and to plead and prove the prejudice caused to them by above non-supply of additional documents, so also no material placed on record to prove what prejudice have -73- been caused. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
The applicants themselves not complied with procedural requirements as onus was on applicant to prove and contradict by establishing that he himself appeared in written exam and on technicalities no benefit can be given.
60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India and others versus Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others, (2011) 2 SCC 316 has considered and observed in para 13 that "it was rightly observed by the learned single judge that the respondent never raised the issue of any prejudice having been caused by the non-supply of the documents during the proceedings. The Division Bench also failed to appreciate that all material documents relied upon by the Bank had been supplied to the respondent or inspected."
So no different is the present cases as applicants in these OAs never raised any issue of prejudice on non-supply of documents sought so also said documents not relied in the enquiry. All RUD have been supplied and inquiry report based only on expert reports RUD. Thus in view of law laid down in above precedent the contention of applicants as to non-supply of documents has no force accordingly rejected.
61. During course of the argument Mr. M.P. Dixit Ld. counsel appearing for the applicants brought to our notice order dated 13.10.2023 passed in OA No. 330/918 of 2021 Sanjeev Kumar Versus Union of India and others passed by Ld. Coordinate Bench at Allahabad of this Tribunal. Mr. M.P. Dixit placed much emphasis whereas case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on facts and law ratio of case to be understood to facts situation and it is well settled that a little difference in facts may make a lot of difference in precedential value of the decision. [Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sagar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111]. In this case of applicant Sanjeev Kumar was not served copy of inquiry report and denied opportunity to represent under Rules 1968. So also distinguishable not considered the settled legal preposition and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment in case of Indian Overseas Bank and others Versus Om Prakash Lal Srivastava, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 803 has held that -74- referring to earlier judicial precedents that standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cited precedent in para 21 has held that requirement of handwriting expert to be called in for said purpose would go contrary to the settled legal position enunciated by this Court. So also case of Sanjeev Kumar (Supra) distinguishable in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus Dilip Paul, 2023 (3) SLJ 445 (Supreme Court) wherein para 92, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cases of disciplinary inquiry must be examined on broader probabilities, standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
Bearing in mind aforesaid principles of law, we must look into relevant portion of the evidence taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion that charges are held to be proved. We have already analysed inquiry report conclusions in preceeding paras of this order that there is legal evidence in Forensic Science evidence of reputed institution corroborated with fingerprint examiner expert evidence conclusive so far determining identity of person and present case is not a case of no evidence. So is the case in case of OA No. 257 of 2014 Devendra Kumar Chowdhary Versus Union of India & Ors. Decided on 15.10.2014 by learned coordinate Bench at Allahabad of this Tribunal affirmed by Hon'ble High Court in writ vide order dt. 30.04.2018 is distinguishable on facts as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. Versus Om Prakash Lal Srivastava (Supra) and in Union of India Versus Dilip Paul (Supra) that disciplinary proceedings must be examined on broader probabilities preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt otherwise said purpose would go contrary to settled legal position enunciated by Apex Court. Thus the decision cited are of no help to applicants.
62. Mr. M.P. Dixit Learned Counsel appearing for applicants also placed reliance in case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) wherein Mr. Negi facing main charge of stealing the draft book and other documents and assumption was drawn on basis of documents supplied by the police. Since facts are different as to present cases the decision does not come to rescue of applicants. In case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra) the Inquiry officer has failed to supply -75- documents to petitioner which were relied while in inquiry. The RUD were not supplied to prove charges whereas in present cases it is admitted fact that in all cases RUD with SF-5 were supplied.
63. Mr. M.P. Dixit also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court Patna in case of Lalan Pandey Vs. State of Bihar (Supra), the factum in the above precedent relates to the Inquiry officer himself assumed the role of presenting officer. It is well settled in law ratio decidendi is based upon the fact actually decided. It is the authority for those facts. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 38.
Mr. Dixit fairly submitted that presenting officer was appointed for each case separately except in cases OA NO. 754/2022, OA NO. 755/2022 and OA NO. 773/2022. So also submitted that in OA No. 219/2019 Mr. M.K. Dwivedi was presenting officer whereas in some cases earlier Mr. Dwivedi acted as presenting officer. The applicants never pleaded any prejudice at any stage of inquiry regarding appointment of presenting officer or Inquiry officer. So also learned counsel for applicants not contended as to any prejudice in appointment of presenting officers. The Division Bench of M.P. High Court speaking through the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri R.V. Raveendram in case of Union of India Versus Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR (2004) M.P. 821 summarised principles on considering Rule 9(9)(c) of R.S.(D&A) Rules 1968 applicable in these batch cases as to appointment of presenting officer to present case. Their Lordships held that it is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint a presenting officer in each and every inquiry, non-appointment of presenting officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry. The disciplinary inquiry held complying principles of natural justice accordance with rules and no prejudice shown to applicants by presenting officers.
64. The decisions cited by learned counsel for applicants in case of Kumar Upendra parimar (Supra) facts of the case related to proving charge on basis of replies. In case of Chandra Kishore (Supra) related to not resorting to statutory remedy in cases of violation of statutory rules. In case of Niranjan Prasad (supra) the statements of defence witnesses not considered and prejudice shown not to examine compute engineer report. In case of Chairman-cum-the Appellate Authority Bihar Publich Service Commission Vs. Meena Pratap (Supra). Their Lordships were dealing -76- with case where criminal proceedings abated on account of death of employee and investigating officer was not cited witnesses to prove I.O. report. So also in case of Vikash Kumar (supra), Lordships were seisin with issue to hold join inquiry in terms of Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and specific Rule 14(4) of Rules 1965. Whereas in present batch of cases inquiry conducted as per Rules 1968. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nair Service Society Versus Dr. T. Beermasthan, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545 in para 48 held that "it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the state governing that field." So as decision cited by Mr. M.P. Dixit counsel for applicants in case of Bharat Purbey (Supra) related to Bihar Pension Rules 1950. Case of Meghnath Ram (supra) witnesses cited were not called and in terms of All India Services (D&A) Rules 1969 penalty imposed without examination of author of documents. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are of no help. Hon'ble Apex Court in case Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Versus State of Maharashtra )2005) 2 SCC 673 held that it is well settled that decision is authority for which it is decided and not what logically deduced therefrom. It is well settled that a little difference in facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 38 held-
"Ration Decidendi" is based upon the facts actually decided.
65. The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.The applicants in these cases have been given opportunity of hearing to prove innocence and defend against charges of high level of fraud by impersonation in recruitment to the post of ALP, but has nothing to bring on record to disprove charges now later on afterthought at this stage cannot be permitted to complain, take shelter of technicalities that they had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending themselves. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India and others versus Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 134 in para 10 and 11 their Lordships held that to grant another opportunity in the case is not tenable in the facts of the case held as under:-
"11. The learned Single Bench has set-aside the order of punishment as well as the penalty order directing the employee to serve a notice before -77- imposing penalty. The respondent avoided availing the said opportunity when offered on 24.03.2016, 07.04.2016 and 22.04.2016. Once opportunity has been granted to the respondent, he is not entitled to another opportunity on the ground of compassion. The only reasoning given by the Division Bench (2017 SCC Online Cal 2559) is "Justice Demands" that the respondents be given one last opportunity to place his version. The respondents has lost his chance to put his version before the competent authority when called upon by the authority to do so. Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on the pretext of justice. The delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a manner. Once the respondents have failed to avail the opportunity of hearing granted, the bank cannot be directed to give another opportunity for the sake of justice. Therefore, we find that the directions contained in para 18 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench are not sustainable and the same are set-aside."
[Emphasis Supplied] The applicants have been found to be involved in high level of fraud using means of impersonation to secure employment in the railways, once applicants committed wrong as such they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong as per the settled position of the law that the wrongdoer cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Hon'ble supreme Court in case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 has held "a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently "a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong."
Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Shailendra (Dead) through legal representatives and Others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 412. Their Lordships held at paragraph 143 reads as:-
"It is a settled proposition that one cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The doctrine 'commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet' means convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. No person ought to have advantage of his own wrong. A litigant may be right or wrong. Normally merit of lis is to be seen on date of institution. One cannot be permitted to obtain unjust injunction or stay orders and take advantage of own actions. Law intents to give redress to the just causes, at the same time, it is not its policy to foment litigation and enable to reap the fruits owing to the delay caused by unscrupulous persons by their own actions by misusing the process of law and dilatory tactics."
[Emphasis Supplied] The Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in Anneuser Busch Inbev India Limited versus Commissioner (Excise, Entertainment and Luxury tax) & ors MANU/DE/4352/2019 has held-
-78-"The conduct of the party complaining about breach of principles of natural justice would also have to be considered. Having participated in such proceedings without protest the petitioner cannot be now allowed to challenge the procedure adopted by the appellate authority merely because, the result is not to his liking. Law does permit a party to both approbate and reprobate."
[Emphasis Supplied] In Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors versus Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors 2011 (5) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the doctrine of election as under:-
"12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppels-the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppels by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppels), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. [Vide Babu Ram v. Indra Pal Singh, P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti and Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V. Golden Chariot Airport.] [Emphasis Supplied]
66. The applicants secured appointment as a Assistant Loco Pilot pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice No.01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 besides containing several other conditions, Para 14, Sub-Para No.14.01 and 14.04 of Para 14 are reproduced as under:-
"14 IMPERSONATION/SUPPRESSION OF FACTS WARINING:
14.01 No candidate should attempt impersonation or take the help of any impersonator at any stage of the selection process. Such candidates will be debarred for life from appearing in all RRB examinations as well as debarred from any appointment in Railway, in addition, legal action will be taken against the candidate.
14.04 Any candidate found using unfair means in the examination or sending someone else in his/her place to appear in the examination will be debarred from appearing in all the examinations of all the RRBs for life-time. He/she will also be debarred from getting any appointment in the Railways. Such candidates are also liable for prosecution.
The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. It was found in forensic science laboratory reports that recruitment related documents (Declaration Form I, II & III) duly written by candidates in RRB/Muzaffarpur on the date of verification of certificates and hand writing and signature sample available in the OMR Answer Sheet of written examination did not match. So also further Finger Print Examiner -79- report also revealed the fact that finger prints available on the OMR Answer Sheet/ Attendance sheet at written exam did not match with finger print given by applicants on declaration form I, II & III submitted by them on the date of document verification and identity at RRB/ Muzaffarpur.
The applicants have taken help of the impersonator high level of fraud of impersonation in selection process, the reports of forensic science laboratories as well as finger print experts report, authorities themselves made applicants to write and sign same phrase before them and seems compared writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The Tribunal also perused the record and original documents of disciplinary proceedings during hearing. In these batch of cases there is clear evidence in experts reports with sound reasons, under Evidence Act both Section 45 and 47 evidentiary value after given reasonable opportunity to the applicants against the proposed actions. The applicants committed high level of fraud by impersonation to secure appointment on the post of A.L.P. in Railways. The fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings.
In the case of Devendra Kumar vs State of Uttaranchal(2013) 9 SCC 363, Hon'ble The Apex court has held as under-
"13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
(Vide: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349, the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."
14. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-
Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR 1994SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481, this Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law."
15. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Bros., AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held as under :- "Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct."
........................................
18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686, this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under :- "If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of -80- Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer."
...........................................
25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650).
Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur)."
[Emphasis Supplied]
67. Since the applicant secured appointments based on high level of fraud by way of impersonation and cannot be overlooked and compassion cannot be permitted to bend arms of law in types of cases in the present batch. The applicants could not claim as a matter of right to continue in the employment obtained by fraud. The present OAs devoid of merit deserves no interference as these cases cannot be considered cases of no evidence, reasonable opportunity given to applicants at all stages against proposed actions not rebutted by evidence, documents relevant at point of time when incident of impersonation has happened have been supplied to the applicants. The preponderance of probability is the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The reports of experts contained in GEQD reports and corroborated by finger print examiner reports material evidence supplied and after due process of hearing on service of SF-5, notice of hearing, orderly course of procedure on good and sufficient reason impugned penalty order passed in accordance with aim and object of Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1968 to maintain integrity in railway to weed out corruption, tainted and unlawful behaviour by imposing prescribed penalty as applicants unlawful behaviour- misconduct do not confirms provisions of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
In case of Union of India & others versus M. Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 relevant para 6 reads as-
" Fraudulently obtained appointment orders would be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employee and could be recall by the employer and in such cases merely the respondents employees have continued in service for a number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in the favour of the employee or any estoppels against the employee."-81-
[ Emphasis supplied]
68. We are conscious of the limited power of judicial review conferred on this Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority. What comes out loud and clear that the applicants used fraudulent means by procuring impersonation with intention to secure employment in Railway. The complete set served of CFSL reports of Forensic Examination of handwriting and signature along with Departmental Finger Print Examiner report of thumb impressions available on OMR Answer sheet/attendance sheet in exam hall and given on declaration forms submitted by applicants in RRB/ MFJ did not match. The charged officials/applicants submitted reply to SF- 5, applicants attended disciplinary proceedings along with Defence Assistant. The SF-5 alongwith complete set of CFSL and finger print examiner reports were received is admitted fact, not denied. On the regular hearing against charge framed in presence of Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, Defence Assistant. The reasonable opportunity given to adduce evidence, furnish documentary and oral evidence. The applicants handwriting and signatures were taken as part of proceedings to compare. The defence arguments in the form of written brief was submitted by applicants. The Enquiry report proved charges of impersonation. Copy was received by applicants is admitted and thereafter reply was also filed.
The Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence. The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges. The disciplinary authority considering the forensic science evidence available on record inflicted punishment of removal on the basis of the forensic evidence, findings related to the handwriting, signature, corroborated by findings of expert evidence of thumb impression on the OMR Answer sheet and attendance sheet on date of written examination. So also, handwriting signature and thumb impressions on the declaration forms, verification forms submitted in RRB, Muzaffarpur.
The mismatch of handwriting, signature and thumb-impressions clearly been established and applicants had been afforded reasonable opportunity to contradict. The forensic findings from reputed Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Kolkata Forensic Examination report, on thoroughly examination of original documents in all aspects of handwriting identification, detection of -82- forgery with scientific aid. So also the Finger Print Examiner report clearly established after examination and verification mismatch on OMR sheets, answer sheets in written exam and declaration forms submitted at the time of verification of documents in RRB /MFP.
The reasons in the forensic expert opinion are elaborate, sound, convincing and reliable in CFSL report corroborated by Finger Print Expert reports, compared handwriting and signature during disciplinary proceedings. The well recognised and established scientific processes and forensic findings of experts exist in reports in the cases itself sufficient evidence as per rule of Law and procedure prescribed in enquiry followed.
In our considered opinion the present cases cannot be considered cases of no evidence. The much emphasis is placed on non-production of authors of expert reports to prove the expert reports in accordance with Indian Evidence Act. The law is well settled on the issue that Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in disciplinary proceedings such a course in these cases of disciplinary proceedings would be against settled legal position settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent precedent in case of Indian Overseas Bank and others versus OmPrakash Lal Shrivastava (supra) and Dilip Paul (supra) referring to earlier judicial precedents held that standard of proof in departmental proceedings being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
69. The applicants used high level of fraud by use of fraudulent means by procuring impersonation ample opportunity have been given to applicants to prove innocence but no evidence brought to rebut charges whereas it has been proved that signature and handwriting and thumb impressions on OMR Answer sheet/ attendance sheet signed and thumb impression in the written examination did not match with declaration forms submitted by them on date of documents verification in RRB/MFP. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with findings of enquiry officer, and passed order of removal from service. The appellate authority upheld the order of removal passed by disciplinary authority. Thereafter Revisionary Authority passed speaking order affirming orders passed by disciplinary as well as appellate authorities. The fraud committed by applicants had been proved to secure employment in Railways and there are catena of judgments that in case of fraud principles of natural justice not attracted but in these cases ample opportunity given to prove -83- innocence but applicants had nothing to say but it has been proved that applicants did not appear in written exam and procured impersonator. The fraud vitiates everything.
70. The issue involved in these cases is no more res-integra and qualified by judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) no. 4095 of 2016 Lallan Prasad vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors. decided on 09.03.2017. The Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No. 456 of 2015 arising out of common order dt. 22.10.2014 in OA No. 740/2013 and OA No. 787 of 2013 (CAT Ranchi) alongwith the other OAs. The issue was similar of impersonation mismatch of handwriting and thumb impression. The Govt. examiner GEQD report and also considering law laid down in case Ram Preeti Yadav (2003) 8 SCC 311 upheld this Tribunal's order. The Coordinate Bench of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in case of Satish Kumar versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. in OA no.912/2010 (Delhi) decided on 19.01.2012 also decided identical issue referred in para 51. Thus considering the gravity of misconduct and the Prosecution established charges through cogent material evidence The burden was on applicants to contradict same by material evidence, which applicants have miserably failed to do so. The respondent authority duly proved the charges.
CONCLUSION
71. We have already analysed in detail the issue and in light of aforesaid analysis and covered cases. Accordingly we decide the issue against the applicants. The impugned orders in all the original applications do not suffer from any infirmity, remain unassailable and applicants are not entitled to the reliefs sought by them in these OAs. Hence, interference is declined.
72. Resultantly, all the original applications being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.
73. There shall be no order as to cost.
74. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[Ajay Pratap Singh] [Sunil Kumar Sinha]
Member [J] Member [A]
du/-