Allahabad High Court
Pramod Dubey vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 13 October, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7714 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pramod Dubey Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Mishra,Arvind Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Satish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
On 05.10.2020 the following order was passed:
"Sri Shashi Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Rai, leaned counsel for the Union of India submits that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report was duly supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice in compliance of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner has also submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order dated 20.01.2020 has considered the reply of the petitioner in a very meticulous manner.
Faced with this, Sri Devesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to prepare the matter.
Put up this matter on 13.10.2020, as fresh."
Today when the matter is taken up in the revised call none appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition.
Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India. The candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of constable in the Civil Armed Police Force has been rejected on the foot of impersonation of candidature. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by instituting Writ-A No. 11546 of 2018 (Pramod Dubey Vs Union of India and 4 others). The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions by a judgment entered on 10.05.2018:
"In view of the said submission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition is being disposed of with the following directions:-
(1) The respondent No.3 shall make an effort to get the CFSL report at the earliest. Soon after the receipt of the said report, a fresh show cause notice shall be served upon the petitioner, in case, there is variance in signature etc i.e. the report of CFSL goes against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner shall be called upon to submit his explanation before any final decision is taken after receipt of the CSFL report.
(2) It would be obligatory upon the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings to be undertaken by the respondent No.3.
(3) The final decision so taken shall be duly communicated to the petitioner.
It goes without saying that, in case, the CSFL report goes in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 would be under obligation to forward its recommendation to the respondent No.2 immediately, who shall take follow up action, at the earliest.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the orders dated 10.05.2018 passed by this Court. Prior to the passing of the impugned order as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.07.2018 appending a copy of the CFSL report which was relied upon against the petitioner. The petitioner tendered a reply to the show cause notice on 20.12.2019. In reply to the show cause notice or in the body of the writ petition nothing has been stated to impeach the credibility of the CFSL report on which reliance was placed by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order. Consequent to the failure of the petitioner to bring any material or pleadings in the record and impeach the credibility the authority was fully justified in placing reliance on the aforesaid report. The recital in the show cause notice that the CFSL report is appended to the show cause notice has also not been challenged. The competent authority has applied its mind while passing the order dated 20.01.2020 cancelling the selection of the petitioner. The impugned order is a speaking order. The findings of the authority addresses various issues raised by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice. Some of the relevant extracts of the impugned order are reproduced here under:
"In this regard, it is stated that consequent upon qualifying PST, PET, Written Examination and after declaration of final result of Constable (GD)-2015 through Staff Selection Commission, 765 candidates including the Petitioner of Bihar & Sikkim States allotted to Recruiting Agency of BSF North Bengal Frontier for issuing offer of appointment letter with directions that Photo, signature, handwriting and thumb impression be securitized by detailing a scrutiny board and genuineness of such candidates may be verified from CFSLS/NCRB as per existing procedure. That on receipt of dossiers of selected candidates from concerned RRC of CRPF, Dossiers of these candidates including Petitioner were scrutinized by a detailed Board of Officers, During Scrutiny of Dossiers by the Board of Officers, it is found that handwriting of the Petitioner taken on Admit Card during Written Examination is mismatched with Admit card of Physical and Medical Examination. Accordingly, as per instructions, dossier of the Petitioner was forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi for verification. As per Verification report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, Left Thumb Impression of the petitioner taken on Admit Card of written test is found different from Left Thumb Impressions taken during PST/PET on Candidates Statement. Accordingly, on the basis of forensic report and as per instruction on the subject, a Show Cause Notice was served to the Petitioner by proposing cancellation of his candidature for the post of Const(GD) in BSF on the basis of CFSL report i.e., difference found in thumb impressions of the Petitioner taken at admit card during the Written Examination and during PST/PET Moreover, Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 16/04/2018 also held that conclusion of the employer/ commission that Petitioners had impersonated if was based upon matching of the thumb impression or the photograph then it was definitely entitled to greater respect. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner is not admitted.
In this regard it is respectfully submitted that verification of Thumb impression in respect of Petitioner was carried out as per the procedure in vogue by authorized and independent agency i.e. the CFSL, New Delhi and it does not amount to conducting the proceedings of ex-parte. Hence, contention raised by the Petitioner is not admitted being baseless."
On the foot of reasoned order and after due application of mind the competent authority found the case of impersonation against the petitioner. The conclusions of the authority are not liable to be interfered with.
No perversity in the aforesaid findings nor any procedural impropriety or violation of principles of natural justice could be made out. The impugned order does not warrant interference.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Pravin