Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Arun Kumar Mandal vs Railway on 29 January, 2025
1 O.A. No. 050/0067
671/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
PATNA
O.A. No. 050/0067
00671/2019
Date of order:-29.01.2025.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [[A]
HON'BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
Arun Kumar Mandal, son of Satish Prasad Mandal, Assistant Loco
Loco--
Pilot (Electric), Posted at Patratu in Dhanbad Division, E.C.
Railway, Dhanbad.
Patna
Bench
.......Applicant
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, E.C. Railway,
Hajipur. At, P.O.-Hajipur,
P.O. District-Vaishali,
Vaishali, PIN
PIN-844101.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad Division, E.C.
Railway, Dhanbad. At, P.O. and Distict
Distict-Dhanbad, PIN-826101.
3. The Divisional
Divisional Rail Manager (Personal), Dhanbad Division, E.C.
Railway, Dhanbad. At, P.O. and District
District-Dhanbad, PIN Code--
826101.
4. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad Division,
E.C. Railway, Dhanbad.At,P.O. and District
District-Dhanbad, PIN Code--
826101.
5. The
The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Dhanbad
Division, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad. At, P.O. and Distict
Distict-Dhanbad,
Dhanbad,
PIN Code-826101.
Code
6. The Chief Crew Controller, E.C. Railway, Patratu. At+P.O.
At+P.O.--
Patreatu, District-Dhanbad,
District Dhanbad, PIN Code
Code-
........Respondents
For Applicant:-
Applicant: Shri R.N. Tiwary
Tiwary, Advocate
For Respondents:-
Respondents: Shri H.R.. Singh
Singh, Addl. CGSC,
2 O.A. No. 050/0067
671/2019
ORDER
PER:- RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
1. Heard ld. counsel for the parties.
2. Both the counsel for the parties have agreed that exactly same matter has already been adjudicated upon by this Bench vide order dated 21.02.2024 in OA No. 214/2022 and 49 OAs which have been decided together.
3. Both the counsels have agreed that the issues involved are Patna Bench exactly the same and this OA should also be disposed of along the same lines and there is no new point to be adjudicated upon.
4. In view of the submissions, we find that the operative portion of those OAs that were decided together is as follow follows:-
"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 ggiven iven on declaration forms submitted by applicants in RRB/ MFJ did not match. The charged officials/applicants submitted reply to SF SF-5, 5, applicants attended disciplinary proceedings along with Defence Assistant. The SF SF-5 along with complete set of CFSL and finger 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 failfailed ed to do so. The respondent 3 O.A. No. 050/0067 671/2019 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 handwriti handwriting, ng, 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 submitted in RRB, Muzaffarpur.
The mismatch of handwriting, signature and thumb thumb-impressions 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 Laboratory, Examination report, on thoroughly examination of original documents in all aspects of handwriting identification, detection of forgery with scientific aid. So also the Finger Print Examiner 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.
Patna The reasons in the forensic expert opinion are ela elaborate, borate, sound, Bench 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 non-productionn 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 disciplinary Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent precedent in case of Indian Overseas Bank and others versus Om Prakash Lal Shrivastava (supra) and Dilip Paul (supra) referring to earlier judicial precedents 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 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 th 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 as well as appellate authorities. The fraud committed by applicants had been proved to secure employment in Railways 4 O.A. No. 050/0067 671/2019 and there are catena of judgments that in case of fraud principles of natural justice not attracted but in these cases ample opportunity giv given en to prove 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 integra and qualified by judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at qualified 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 commo common n 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 19.01.2012also decided identical issue referred in para 51. Thus Patna considering the gravity of misconduct and the Prosecution established charges Bench 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 th thee 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."
6. This OA is also disposed of in terms of above order.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
du/-