Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj vs Northern Railway on 3 August, 2022
1
O.A. No. 1300/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1300/2022
New Delhi, this Wednesday the 03rd day of August, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Sh. Pankaj,
S/o Sh. Hari Krishan,
Near Chhota Shiv Mandir,
Alipur, Delhi-110033.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Ms. L. Gangmei )
Versus
Northern Railways,
Through General Managar,
K.G. Marg, Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondent
(Advocate :Mr. K. M. Singh)
2
O.A. No. 1300/2022
O R D E R (ORAL)
(PER: Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman) This OA is filed challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2021 along with Expert Opinion dated 03.10.2015 and the order dated 06.08.2021.
2. Earlier the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1010/2017 challenging the cancellation of his candidature. This application was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2021 by making following observation:
"We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the cancellation of the candidature of the applicant. It is left open to the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the applicant indicating the reasons and enclosing the relevant documents, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall have two weeks' time to file reply thereto. The final order in the matter shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date on which the reply is filed by the applicant or the time stipulated therefore expires. The respondents enclose the relevant documents including the opinion of the expert body. Further steps shall be taken, depending upon the exercise indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."
3. In pursuance of the above order, the respondents issued Show Cause Notice to the applicant dated 09.07.2021. The applicant, thereafter, filed representation dated 27.07.2021 to the above Show Cause Notice. The respondents considered the applicant's representation and confirmed the earlier order rejecting his candidature and, 3 O.A. No. 1300/2022 therefore, the applicant has again approached this Tribunal.
4. The respondents recorded their finding in para -2 of the impugned order stating that during the pendency of the proceedings, it was decided by Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) administration to get the expert advice from Ex. Government Examiner for Questionable Documents (GEQD) duly nominated by Ministry of Railway for the purpose with reference to matching of Hand-writing and signature of relevant papers i.e. application form, OMR sheet and document verification proformas. The Document Expert informed that writings and signatures on the OMR, document verification proformas and Medical Memo do not match with the writings in the application.
5. The applicant has never challenged the handwriting report of GEQD. In the absence of such challenge to the said report, we have to accept the same.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the observation in Para-7 of the order dated 31.04.2021 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1010/2017. This observation will not help the applicant inasmuch as finding is recorded that the discrepancy was in fact noticed between the 4 O.A. No. 1300/2022 document marked as A1, A2, A3 with the portion marked as A4 i.e. Medical Memo.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 and specially the observation in Para-8 therein. We have gone through the said observation. The Apex Court by taking sympathetic view in Para-8 held that the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminal for the rest of their lives. The sympathetic view was taken by the Apex Court in the facts of that case. The allegation in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) was that the candidate made a false statement. The facts of the present case and the facts of Sandeep Kumar (supra) are distinguishable. In the present case the allegation against the applicant is about impersonation, therefore, the decision of Sandeep Kumar (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case.
8. In the above circumstances, we do not find merit in the matter. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More) Member (A) Chairman as/gm/yy