Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Neeraj Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly on 10 July, 2019
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 330/01374/2016
Allahabad this the 10th day of July, 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Ajanta Dayalan, Member- A
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member- J
Neeraj Kumar S/o Sri Suresh Chandra, Resident of Village-Rampur, Post-Gohri,
Tehsil-Soraon, District Allahabad. C/o I.P. Patel Main Guard Room 29 Wing Air
Force Station, Bamrauli, Allahabad.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Vs.
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
3. Chief Personal Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Ajanta Dayalan, A.M. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant Neeraj Kumar seeking quashing of information letter dated 16.12.2015 as well as orders dated 31.03.2016 and 04.05.2016. He has also prayed for direction to the respondents department to issue appointment letter to the applicant for group D post treating him as one of the selected candidates with all consequential benefits.
2. According to the applicant, a total of about 2715 vacancies in group D post were advertised by the railways vide employment notice dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure A-4). The requisite qualifications mentioned therein were Matriculation as well as reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs. The applicant, who belongs to OBC category and being eligible, applied 2 and received call letter for written examination to be held on 09.11.2014 (Annexure A-5). The result was declared (Annexure A-6) and the applicant was declared successful. Thereafter, the applicant appeared for physical efficiency test on 12.03.2015 and was again declared successful. Thereafter, he appeared for medical examination on 06.10.2015 and was declared fit (Annexure A-8). Finally, the respondents department called the applicant for documents verification. These were duly produced and verified by the department. However, vide information downloaded by the applicant on 16.12.2015, his appointment was cancelled on the ground that his handwriting and thumb impression at the time of application were not matching with the candidate appearing in written as well as physical efficiency test.
3. The case of the applicant is that he himself had filled up his application form and also appeared in written test. As such, according to him, there was no question of mismatch in his handwriting and thumb impression. Counsel for the applicant also stated that no inquiry in this regard was conducted by the respondents and no show cause notice was issued to him. He has also pleaded that at no point of time, the issue of mismatch was raised. The applicant has, therefore, pleaded that the cancellation of his selection on this basis is not correct and he pleaded for inquiry which he is ready to face.
4. The counsel for the applicant has also stated that a detailed representation dated 18.12.2015 (Annexure A-9) was submitted by the applicant in this regard. However, there has been no fruitful response even though a reminder was sent on 08.01.2016 (Annexure-10). The applicant has pleaded that cancellation of appointment order is in violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to him to defend himself before cancelling the selection.
5. The counsel for the applicant has further pleaded that he approached this Tribunal by O.A. No. 95 of 2016 wherein the respondents 3 department was asked to file the counter affidavit vide order dated 21.01.2016 of this Tribunal (Annexure A-12). However, the respondents on 22.01.2016 passed another order threatening the applicant to debar him from future employment in government job as well as for criminal proceeding initiated against him. This memo had been replied by the applicant vide letter dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure A-13). The counsel for the applicant has further stated that he has been debarred from future examination. He has also stated that the examination hall had CCTV installed and hence the activities could be monitored by the respondents department. In case there was any doubt about his identity, same could be objected at that point of time but this was not done and after completion of whole process and after declaration of final result, suddenly his selection has been cancelled.
6. The applicant has further brought to our notice that in another indentical matter in O.A. No. 1789/2015 Vijay Pal and others v. Union of India and others, this Tribunal has already passed an interim order dated 31.12.2015. He has pleaded that being identical matter, applicant deserves similar treatment. In O.A. No. 95/2016, referred to above, due to two different orders dated 31.03.2016 and 04.05.2016 passed by the respondents later, an amendment application was filed by the applicant. This Tribunal however gave liberty to the applicant to file fresh O.A. vide order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure A-15).
7. On the other hand, the respondents have contested the claim of applicant and have stated that the impugned three orders have been passed by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, North Central Railway, Allahabad. They have stated that it is true that an advertisement for recruitment of 2715 group D posts of different categories was advertised in employment notice of 2013 (Annexure R-1). The examination consisted of written examination followed by physical efficiency test. The final selection was however subject to the candidates being found medically fit and after antecedent verification as per existing 4 rules. They have also admitted that the applicant i.e. Neeraj Kumar applied for the post along with other candidates. The application form included his signature as well as thumb impression. He also certified about the truth, completeness and correctness of all the statements made by him in the application form. It was moreover declared by him that in the event of any information being found false or incorrect or himself not being found eligible in terms of eligibility criteria, his candidature/ appointment was liable to be cancelled/terminated without any notice at any stage ever after empanelment. The respondents have further stated that the applicant appeared for written test on 09.11.2014 at Allahabad and thereafter in physical efficiency test on 12.03.2015. As he qualified in both these examinations, he was called for verification of original documents, identity and medical examination. The respondents department has averred that during document verification, the verifying officer tallied the submitted documents with original documents. He also tallied photograph, signature, thumb impression and declaration with the signature, thumb impression and declaration on OMR, photograph pasted in the half portion of call letter retained after taking signature and thumb impression along with sample of thumb impression, signature and declaration taken during document verification. It was at this stage that doubts were raised by the verifying officer in regard to handwriting in the application form and that at the time of written examination on OMR sheet. Thus, the applicant violated para-18 and 18 A of the employment notice. The documents of the applicant were sent for verification to government examiner of questionable documents. It is stated in the report that the handwritings are not of one and the same person. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 22.01.2016. On receipt of clarification from him, the competent authority found the clarification unsatisfactory and cancelled his appointment. The cancellation was informed to the applicant vide letter dated 31.03.2016. 5
8. The respondents have, therefore, concluded that the case of applicant is one of impersonation. They have, therefore, stated that in view of several pronouncements of Apex Court, the applicant's candidature was rejected. They have finally stated that the case of applicant lacks merit and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings in the case. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
10. We observe that the issue is regarding cancellation of candidature of the applicant in the examination for group D post in which the applicant had otherwise qualified but the candidature was cancelled on the ground of impersonation. The main ground for believing that it was a case of impersonation is the handwriting report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents to whom handwriting in the application form as well as that taken at the time of written examination on OMR sheets were sent. We, however, also note that besides handwriting, thumb impression was also taken in the application form as well as on OMR sheets and at the time of physical efficiency test. It is widely acknowledged fact that the thumb impression is a much more reliable and credible proof of identity than the handwriting. This is more so as the examination of handwriting is more subjective and the handwriting itself of the same person changes over period of time. Hence, we believe that to put the matter to rest, the department may use the evidence of thumb impression which is available with them for confirming whether the person who appeared in the examination was the same as the applicant or it was a case of impersonation. Such examination should put the matter beyond dispute. There is no mention in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that such examination has been got done.
11. In view of the above, we remit the case back to the respondents department to get the thumb impression of the applicant on the 6 application form and the thumb impression on the OMR sheet and in physical efficiency test verified from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla. The respondents department will consider such report of the Government Examiner and decide the case of applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicant.
12. Needless to say, this order be not construed as any expression or opinion on merits of the case.
13. In view of all the above, the O.A. is disposed of. There is no order as to cost.
(Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain) (Ms. Ajanta Dayalan)
Member - J Member - A
/M.M/
7
Delhi District Court
Smt. Neelam Devi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 May, 2015 Author: Sh. Rakesh Syal IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH SYAL, SPECIAL JUDGE, (PC ACT) & (CBI)-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI Crl. Revision No. 04/15 In re:
Smt. Neelam Devi, W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar, R/o A-1/31, Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
............... petitioner Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Rajender Gupta, S/o Sh. Subhash Chand, R/o E-3/7, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
............... Respondents Date of Institution : 18-03-2015 Date on which arguments heard : 15-05-2015 Date on which Order passed : 22-05-2015 ORDER
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 09-03-2015 is set aside. Accordingly, the application dated 16-09-2013 moved by the petitioner/accused before the Ld. Trial Court is allowed and it is directed as under :-
(A) The following documents be sent by the Ld. Trial Court to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for opinion of Govt. Document/Handwriting/Finger Impressions Expert on the points mentioned in para 29 above :-
(i) Cheque No. 459844 dated 24-12-2011, Ex.CW1/A, Agreement dated 20-09-2011, Ex.CW1/B and Promissory Note/Receipt dated 20-09-2011, Ex.CW1/C,
(ii) Admitted handwriting/signatures of petitioner/accused Neelam Devi and respondent No. 2/complainant Rajender Gupta, as available on judicial record,
(iii) Specimen handwriting/signatures of petitioner/accused Neelam Devi and respondent No. 2/complainant Rajender Gupta to be obtained by the Ld. Trial Court before it, and
(iv) Specimen handwriting/signatures and finger/thumb impressions of Sh. Pawan Kumar, to be obtained by the Ld. Trial Court before it. (B) Ld. Trial Court may also add any other query, which may appear to it to be relevant, for opinion of the Govt.
Document/Handwriting/Finger Impressions Expert.
Crl. Rev. No. 04/15 22-05-2015 24 of 25
Neelam Devi Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
8(C) Ld. Trial Court shall, after obtaining the specimen handwriting/signature and finger/thumb impressions as above, send the aforesaid documents to FSL, Rohini, Delhi expeditiously and obtain report/opinion therefrom in a time bound manner.
32. Any opinion expressed hereinbefore shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
33. A copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
34. Revision file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court today on 22nd day of May, 2015 (Rakesh Syal) Spl. Judge, (PC Act) & (CBI) -03, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (ra) Crl. Rev. No. 04/15 22- 05-2015 25 of 25 Neelam Devi Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.