Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jitendra Kumar vs South East Central Railway on 14 May, 2024
1 OA 1480/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/01480/2021
DATE OF HEARING : 06.05.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14.05.2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Jitendra Kumar,
Son of Chandrika Prasad, residing at 3G Rupchand Roy Street
Post Office- Burrabazar, Police Station- Burrabazar, Kolkata-
700007.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the General Manager,
South East Central Railway, New Zonal Building, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, Pin- 495004.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, having office at Rail
Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi- 110001.
3. Railway Recruitment Board, beside GM/SECR
Headquarter, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh- 495004.
4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Headquarter,
Personnel Department, Railway Recruitment Cell, RTS Colony,
Bilaspur (CG), Pin- 495004.
5. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Bilaspur,
Headquarter, Personnel Department, Railway Recruitment Cell,
RTS Colony, Bilaspur (CG), Pin- 495004.
.........Respondents
6. Sanaka Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Village
and PO Malandighi, Police Station- Kanksha, District- Paschim
Bardhaman, Durgapur, West Bengal, India- 713212.
..................Proforma Respondent
2 OA 1480/2021
For The Applicant(s): Ms. S. Trivedi, Counsel
Mr. P. Kumar, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Paul, Counsel
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"(a) A writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate order(s) quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order being ref . :- No. P.HQ./ RRC/CEN/02/2018/91 dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Assistant Personnel Office (Recruitment) and to reserve (one) post for the applicant;
(b) A writ of certiorari directing the concerned respondent authorities to certify and transmit the records pertinent to the instant case before this Hon'ble Tribunal so that conscionable justice may be rendered;
(c) Rule NISI in terms of the prayers made above;
(d) Interim order if any in the prays above;
(e) Any further order or orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
2.1 The applicant applied for a Gr. D post in Level-1 against notification no. CEN 02/2018 issued by the Railways. He applied for appointment in South East Central Railway. He was assigned with Roll No. 302022018970003 and was subjected to Computer Based Test (CBT) on 25.09.2018 at Sanaka Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Dist.-
Paschim Bardhaman, Durgapur, West Bengal- 713212 Shift 1. 2.2 In order to register attendance and for verification of genuineness of candidates at later stages of Document Verification/ Medical 3 OA 1480/2021 Examination, all candidates bearing valid e-call letters were registered in examination hall on biometrics. Left Thumb Impressions of the candidates, a photograph, hand writing and signature of the applicant on e-call letter were also obtained in examination hall.
2.3 As the applicant qualified in the CBT conducted on 25.09.2018, he was called for next level of examination i.e., Physical Endurance Test (PET) on 28.03.2019. At the time of PET, the biometrics of all candidates were recorded again. Candidates' Left Thumb Impression, Right Thumb Impression and signature were also obtained on counter foil for E-call letter for PET. As the applicant qualified in PET, he was called for Document Verification (DV) during which the bio-metrics of all the candidates taken during CBT as well as PET were matched. The candidates were required to fill up the DV sheet and declaration sheets wherein the signature, left and right thumb impressions and writings of candidates were obtained. Biometrics of applicant, at the time of DV matched with his biometrics which was recorded during the PET. However, his biometrics at the time of DV did not match with his biometrics which was recorded during the CBT conducted on 25.09.2018.
2.4 The applicant was sent for medical examination after Document Verification. He was found fit in medical test. Since the biometrics of the applicant at the time of DV did not match with his biometrics which was recorded during the CBT, on suspicion of impersonation, he was not empanelled and his case was further referred to Chief Finger Print Examiner (CFPE) for investigation of his thumb impressions. The CFPE could not give a clear opinion as some of the thumb impressions of the applicant were not properly marked, i.e., were declared unfit for 4 OA 1480/2021 verification by the CFPE. His case was further referred to an empanelled Ex. Dy Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) for verification of hand writing, signature and thumb impression. Ex. Dy. GEQD certified that signature, two left thumb impressions and hand writing of the applicant on the counterfoil of written examination call letter do not match with other signature, left thumb impression and writing on documents such as counterfoil of PET call letter, declaration taken during PET, attendance sheet of PET, counterfoil of DV call letter, declaration form during DV and verification sheet of DV. According to the respondents, it was thus clearly established that someone else had appeared in CBD in place of the applicant.
2.5 The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2019 by which his explanation was called for and he was asked to show cause as to why action against him should not be taken for impersonation by debarring him from all examinations conducted by RRBs and RRCs. The applicant replied to the said notice, which was received in the office of the respondents on 31.10.2019. Respondents issued a letter on 21.01.2021 debarring him for life from appearing in any future examinations conducted by the respondent. Hence, this OA.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant makes the following points :-
(i) Photographs of the applicant taken during CBT, PET and DV were the same.
(ii) Applicant has procured the CCTV footage of the CBT Examination Hall, photos from which were filed along with a supplementary affidavit.
Photos extracted from the CCTV footage show that the applicant appeared in person in the CBT.
5 OA 1480/2021
(iii) There was no mention of the Right Thumb Impression (RTI) of the applicant in the ex-Dy GEQD's report which proves that there was no mismatch of the RTI of the applicant.
(iv) Biometrics of the candidate may not have matched due to mechanical fault in the machines which is quite common.
(v) The applicant was sent for medical examination after the Document Verification stage creating a legitimate expectation in the mind of the applicant that he had cleared all the stages of the selection process.
(vi) Applicant is a Diploma in Civil Engineering and has qualified in various competitive examinations conducted by other Government agencies like the BSF and Bihar Police. He has even appeared in the examination for appointment of Assistant Loco Pilots (ALFP conducted by the Railways without any problems. He is well qualified to clear the CBT on merits on his own and he had no reason to engage on impersonator to appear in the examination on his behalf.
4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
(i) Only the LTI of the candidates was taken at the time of CBT so there is no question of matching the RTI at the time of DV.
(ii) During DV, when the biometrics of the candidate did not match with the biometrics taken at the time of CBT, his case was referred to the CFPE who opined that the LTI was unclear and hence could not be matched.
(iii) On receiving the CFPE's report, the matter was referred to the empanelled GEQD who unambiguously stated that the applicant's 6 OA 1480/2021 signature, hand writing and LTI taken during CBT did not match with those taken during PET and DV.
(iv) Respondents have followed the laid down procedure as per RRB Manual which does not have any provision for any further verification. As per the provisions of RRB Manual, the case was referred to an ex-Dy. GEQD whose name was included by the Railway Board in a panel for verification of documents for the purpose of matching them.
(v) Since there is a gap between the actual document scrutiny and getting the verification report from the examining authorities like the CFPE or the GEQD, all candidates whose candidature were not outrightly rejected while scrutinizing the documents were sent for medical examination for the convenience of the candidates. Merely being sent for the medical examination and clearing such examination does not create any right in favour of the candidates whose cases may otherwise be still awaiting final decision on the basis of verification of the documents.
(vi) The applicant has been debarred after following the due procedure in this regard after issuing a show cause notice to him and after considering his reply to the show cause notice which was not found satisfactory by the respondents.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the documents on record.
5.1 The respondents have relied on the opinion of an Ex-Dy. GEQD which is quoted below :- (emphasis supplied)
" The candidate who has written the (2) Counterfoil of PET Call Letter, (3) Declaration Form taken during PET, (4) Attendance Sheet of PET, (5) Counterfoil of Document Verification Call Letter, (6) Declaration form during Document Verification & (&) Verification Sheet of Document Verification, matches with each other. 7 OA 1480/2021
Signature, two Left Hand Thumb Impressions & writings on (1) Counterfoil of written examination Call Letter, do not match with other signatures, Left Hand Thumb Impressions & writing on documents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7."
It has not been denied by the respondents that there was no mismatch in the photographs of the applicant taken during CBT, PET and DV. Nor is there any denial that a functioning CCTV was installed in the CBT examination hall.
5.2 In this matter, we are guided by the judgments of this Tribunal in OA no. 350/0387/2016 delivered on 16.05.2023 and in OA no. 442/2017 delivered on 17.08.2023 where the circumstances of the case and the issue under adjudication are materially identical to those in the instant case. In both the cases referred to above the candidature of the applicant were rejected after obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert not belonging to any Government agency but who is an ex-GEQD. In OA no. 350/0387/2016, this Tribunal has held as follows :-
".................
9. In view of the above, we find that there is a procedural lapse on the part of the Railway authorities in so far as they did not get the handwriting of the applicant verified by a government agency. Had they done so, such information would have been considered to be final.
10. Although this is a very old matter, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the handwriting of the applicant is verified by a Government agency such as the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents or CFSL by following the prescribed procedure. After obtaining an opinion of such experts, the respondents may take a final decision on the candidature of the applicant.
The applicant should be informed of the decision taken in this case within two months.
......................................................."
5.3 We are inclined to take the same view as in OA no. 350/0387/2016 considering the parity in the cases. We, therefore, direct the respondents to 8 OA 1480/2021 get the handwriting, signature and LTI of the applicant verified by a Government agency such as the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) or CFSL by following the prescribed procedure. After obtaining the opinion of such experts, and taking into consideration the applicant's photographs and the footage of the CCTV of the CBT venue on the date of the CBT, the respondents are directed to take a final decision on the candidature of the applicant, within a period of 04 (four) months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in their office and inform the applicant of the decision taken in his case forthwith.
6. With these directions, OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl