Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rakesh Kumar vs North Eastern Railway on 18 May, 2026
(Reserved on 15.04.2026) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad **** Original Application No.737/2022 This is the 18th Day of May 2026 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 32 years son of Shri Nand Kishore Singh, Ex. Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, East Central Railway, Crew Lobby, Samastipur, under Samastipur Division. Resident of Village and Post-Kaura, PS-Jagdishur, District Bhojpur (Bihar) 802162. Presently residing at C/o Ramesh Ji, Railway Phatak, Chitampur (BHB), Mugalsarai, U.P. ...........Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-II, East Central Railway, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar (Mugalsarai)
3. Senor Divisional Electrical Engineer (G), East Central Railway, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar (Mugalsarai).
4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
Along with
Original Application No.15/2022
Avinash Kumar Ranjan, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Singh Ex. Tech- III (SPAP), East Central Railway, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar (Mugalsarai) R/o Village - Lohai Tola (Amarpuri), Post - Yar, Police Station Agion Bazar, District Bhojur (Bihar) 802155.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2
3. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway, Samastipur.
4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
Along with
Original Application No.361/2022
Rahul Kumar Yadav, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Satya Narayan Yadav, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot E/BRWD. Presently residing at 188/95A, Chakiya, Rajrooppur, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad.
3. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Dhanbad
4. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Dhanbad
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K.K. Ojha
Along with
Original Application No. 736/2022
Md. Rizwan Anzar, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Motiur Rahman, Ex. Pilot (Shunter- II/Barauni. Resident of Village - Masadh, Bhojpur, (Bihar). Presently residing at C/o Md. Ali Nomani, Vill- Lohta, Islampur, Varanasi.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Sonepure Division, Soneur.
4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Sonepure.
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vimal Kumar Rai
Shri Bashist Tiwari
Shri K.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No.1083/2022
Ajay Kumar Bhagat, aged about 35 years son of Arjun Bhagat, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot Crew Lobby, Barauni under Sonepur Division. Resident of Village and Post- Sahdei Bujurg, District Vaishasli, 844509 (Bihar). Presently residing at 99, ARK Puram, Karbala, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Sonepur Division, Sonepur.
4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Sonepure.
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Rachna Dubey
Shri K.P. Singh
Along With
Original Application No.1084/2022
Prem Kumar aged about 32 years, son of Shri Arjun Mahto, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot, Cre Lobby, Muzaffarpur under Sonpur Division. Residnet of Village - Bhawanipur, PO
- Dighir, PS- Surajgarha, District - Lakhisarai 811106 (Bihar). Presently residing at 99, ARK Puram, Karbala, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
4
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Sonepur Division, Sonpur.
4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Sonpur.
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Arvind Singh
Shri Ajal Krishna
Shri K.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No.59/2023
Arun Kumar, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Ram Pratap Singh, Ex. Loco Pilot, Crew Lobby, Barauni under Sonpur Division. Resident of Village - Nawner, PO - Dihra, PS
- Obra, District -Aurangabad 824130 (Bihar). Presently residing at 99. ARK Puram, Karbala, Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Sonepure Division, Sonpur.
4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Sonpur.
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
Shri K.P. Singh
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
5
Along With
Original Application No.560/2025
Sikandar Yadav, Aged about 41 years, Son of Sri Mishri Lal Yadav, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/ELE) Gorakhpur (Lobby), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur R/o Village - Mohalla Alamganj, Post -Bihar Sarif, District Nalanda (Bihar).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (O), Lucknow Division, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Along With
Original Application No.564/2025
Ramesh Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Yogendra Prasad, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot, Diesel Lobby, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow Junction, R/o Ward No.4, Kathal Tola, Near Police Station, Post Sohasarai Biharsarif, District Nalanda (Bihar). Presently residing at 99, RK Puram, Karbala, Prayagraj.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (O), Lucknow Division, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
6
Along With
Original Application No.576/2025
Rakesh Kumar, aged about 34 years, Son of Shri Dular Singh, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/ELE) Gorakhpur (Lobby), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur R/o Village
- Bijruk Post - Sabnima, Police Station - Athmaldgola District Patna (Bihar).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (O), Lucknow Division, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Along With
Original Application No.578/2025
Pintu Kumar aged about 39 Years, S/o Shri Ram Vraksha Prasad, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot, Crew Lobby, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur R/o Village - Jorarpur, Post - Pachauri, PS - Dipanagar, District (Bihar).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (O), Lucknow Division, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
7
Along with
Original Application No. 561/2025
Pankaj Kumar Akela, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Rajendra Pradad, Ex. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/ELE) Gorakhpur (Lobby)), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur r/o Village and Post - Parev, Thana - Bihar, District - Patna (Bihar).
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (O), Lucknow Division, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Along with
Original Application No. 860/2022
Kumar Gaurav, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Ram Krishna Prasad, Ex. Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, East Central Railway Crew Lobby, Darbhanga, under Samastiput Division. Presently residing at C/o Ramesh Ji, Railway Phatak, Chitampur (BHB), Mugalsarai, UP.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Samastipur, Division Samastipur.
3. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TR), East Central Railway, Samastipur.
4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
8
Along with
Original Application No. 861/2022
Md. Anwar Ansari, Aged about 36 years, Son of Late Md. Ali, Ex. Assistant Loco Pilot Crew Lobby, Muzaffarpur, under Ssonepur Division. Resident of Village-Jairam Bazar, Post/PS- Khagaul, District Patna (Bihar) 801105. Presently residing at C/o Md. Ali Nomani, Vill-Lohta, Islamur, Varanasi.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
2. Principal Chief Operations Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager-I, East Central Railway, Sonepure Division, Soneur.
4. Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), East Central Railway, Sonepure.
5. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
Shri K.P. Singh
OR D E R
Delivered by Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri K.K. Ojha, Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Smt. Rachna Dubey, Shri K.P. Singh, Shri Bashist Tiwari, Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the connected Original Applications.
2. Since all these Original Applications arise out of the same recruitment process conducted pursuant to CEN No.01/2014 for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and involve substantially identical questions of fact and law relating to disciplinary proceedings founded upon allegations of impersonation in the recruitment examination, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from OA No.737/2022, which is treated as the leading case.
3. The applicant in Original Application 737/2022, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has prayed for the following main relief(s):-
"(i) to quash the impugned penalty order dated 29.12.2020, appellate order dated 11.07.2022 and order passed by RRB dated 03.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.3,2 and 4 respectively (Annexure No.A-1, A-2 and A-3).
"(ii) to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
4. The factual matrix of the leading case, as borne out from the pleadings and the material brought on record, is as follows:
4.1 The respondent authorities issued a recruitment notification under CEN No. 01/2014 for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The applicant participated in the said selection process by submitting his application along with requisite documents. He was issued an admit card and appeared in the written examination held on 15.06.2014. Upon being declared successful in the written examination, he was called for aptitude test held on 23.09.2014, which he also qualified. Thereafter, he was called for document verification on 10.01.2015.
4.2 On successful completion of all stages of selection, the applicant was issued an appointment letter dated 13.08.2015 and was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- under Samastipur Division of East Central Railway. He joined the service after undergoing requisite training and medical fitness and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot on 07.12.2018.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 4.3 Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 03.03.2020 was issued to the applicant by the Railway Recruitment Board alleging that he had indulged in unfair means in the recruitment examination and proposing his debarment for life from RRB/RRC examinations.
4.4 The applicant submitted his reply on 28.03.2020 denying the allegations and asserted that he himself had appeared in all stages of the examination.
4.5 Thereafter, on 03.06.2020, the applicant was debarred for life from appearing in examinations conducted by RRB/RRC on the basis of an ex parte forensic report.
4.6 In the meantime, a charge-sheet dated 10.02.2020 was issued to the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 alleging that he had indulged in impersonation by arranging for another person to appear in the written examination in his place. The charge was primarily based on a report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD), which indicated mismatch of handwriting and a fingerprint expert report indicating mismatch of thumb impressions on the OMR sheet and other documents.
4.7 The applicant submitted his reply on 21.02.2020 to the charge- sheet denying the allegations and contending that he had personally appeared in the examination and that his identity had been duly verified at the examination centre. He also raised objections regarding non-supply of documents and absence of witnesses in support of the charges.
4.8 An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry proceedings were conducted. During the inquiry, the applicant reiterated his defence and requested for supply of original documents and opportunity to cross- examine the expert whose report formed the basis of the charges. However, SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 according to the record, no witness was produced during the inquiry and the author of the forensic report was not examined.
4.9 The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 04.12.2020 holding the charges proved primarily on the basis of the forensic and fingerprint expert reports. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 29.12.2020 imposing the penalty of removal from service.
4.10 The applicant, being aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 29.12.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred a statutory appeal on 13.01.2021 before the competent Appellate Authority. In the said appeal, the applicant raised various grounds assailing the findings recorded in the inquiry report as well as the penalty imposed, inter alia, contending that the entire departmental proceeding was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, non- supply of relevant documents and reliance solely on untested expert opinion.
4.11 The Appellate Authority, however, rejected the said appeal vide order dated 26.03.2021 and upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, primarily concurring with the findings recorded in the inquiry report.
4.12 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 646/2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The Tribunal, after considering the matter, vide order dated 06.04.2022, quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 26.03.2021 and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with law.
4.13 Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter and afforded an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. However, upon such reconsideration, the Appellate Authority SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12 again rejected the appeal vide order dated 11.07.2022, reiterating its earlier conclusions and upholding the penalty imposed upon the applicant.
4.14 Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned orders and reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
5. The respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit controverting the averments made in the Original Applications and placing on record their version of facts, raising, inter alia, the following objections and assertions:
5.1 At the outset, the respondents have raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It has been indicated that the applicant was working under the administrative control of Samastipur Division of East Central Railway and is a resident of District Bhojpur (Bihar), which falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. It has further been stated that the applicant has not brought on record any cogent material to establish that he is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench and as such, the present Original Application is stated to be not maintainable on this ground.
5.2 It has also been brought on record that the applicant had earlier challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.12.2020 and the appellate order dated 26.03.2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in Original Application No. 646/2021. The said Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.04.2022 whereby the appellate order dated 26.03.2021 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeal. It has been stated that, in compliance of the said order, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter and passed a SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 13 fresh speaking order dated 11.07.2022 after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
5.3 A further objection has been taken regarding non-exhaustion of the statutory remedy available under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. It has been indicated that against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the applicant had a remedy of filing a revision petition before the Revisional Authority, which has not been availed and therefore the Original Application is stated to be premature.
5.4 On the factual aspects relating to the recruitment process, it has been indicated that the applicant was selected pursuant to recruitment conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur, in connection with CEN No. 01/2014 and had joined service as Assistant Loco Pilot. It has further been brought on record that during subsequent verification and investigation regarding the candidature of candidates who had appeared in the written examination held on 15.06.2014, discrepancies were noticed in the handwriting and thumb impressions of the applicant at different stages of the selection process.
5.5 The declaration forms filled by the applicant at the time of document verification, along with the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheet and attendance sheet pertaining to the written examination and aptitude test, were forwarded to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Kolkata, for examination and as per the report dated 16.08.2019 received from the said authority, the questioned handwriting and the standard handwriting did not match and fundamental differences were observed in the writing characteristics.
5.6 The Finger Print Examiner, Danapur, had examined the thumb impressions available on the OMR sheet and those available on the declaration forms submitted at the time of verification, and reported that SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 14 the thumb impressions were not identical. The said reports have been placed on record as part of the Counter Affidavit.
5.7 It has been stated that, on the basis of the aforesaid reports, the Vigilance Organisation examined the matter and recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, action was initiated against the applicant under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and a charge-sheet was issued alleging that the applicant had secured appointment by adopting unfair means through impersonation in the written examination.
5.8 It has further been brought on record that an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges, and the applicant, along with his defence assistant, participated in the departmental inquiry proceedings. It has been indicated that, upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the handwriting and thumb impressions of the applicant did not match with those appearing on the examination records, and concluded that another person had appeared in the written examination in place of the applicant.
5.9 It has been stated that the inquiry report was furnished to the applicant and, after consideration of his representation and the material available on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 29.12.2020 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The said order was thereafter upheld by the Appellate Authority.
5.10 It has also been brought on record that, upon remand by the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter, afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant, and thereafter passed a reasoned order dated 11.07.2022, maintaining the penalty imposed.
5.11 It has further been indicated that the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, and the Finger Print Examiner are based on SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 15 scientific examination carried out by competent authorities, and that such reports have been relied upon in similar matters in past proceedings. Reference has also been made to earlier decisions wherein such reports have been taken into consideration in matters relating to impersonation in recruitment examinations.
5.12 It has also been noted that the post of Assistant Loco Pilot is of a sensitive nature involving safety of railway operations, and therefore the matter relating to impersonation in recruitment has been treated with seriousness at the departmental level.
5.13 On the basis of the aforesaid, the respondents have maintained that the action taken against the applicant, including initiation of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty, has been carried out in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the pleadings taken in the Original Application and denying the contents of the Counter Affidavit, wherein it has been indicated that no proper specimen handwriting of the applicant was obtained prior to seeking opinion from the forensic expert and such opinion was relied upon without affording any opportunity at that stage. It has further been reflected that the author of the forensic report was neither included in the list of witnesses nor produced during the inquiry and no opportunity of cross-examination was made available. The forensic report itself reflected insufficiency of specimen writing and suggested collection of additional samples, which was not undertaken and no unfair means were reported at the examination centre.
Facts of Connected Original Applications
7. Apart from the leading case, the remaining connected Original Applications also arise out of the same recruitment process conducted pursuant to CEN No.01/2014 for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 16 Pilot under different Railway Zones and Divisions. In all these matters, the respective applicants participated in the written examination held on 15.06.2014, were declared successful, thereafter qualified the aptitude test and document verification and were ultimately issued appointment letters on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. In several cases, the applicants continued in service for considerable period and were also granted subsequent promotions to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
7.1 The connected matters include, amongst others, OA No.15/2022 (Avinash Kumar Ranjan), OA No.361/2022 (Rahul Kumar Yadav), OA No.576/2025 (Rakesh Kumar), OA No.556/2025 (Ajit Kumar), OA No.557/2025 (Sanjay Kumar), OA No.558/2025 (Ranjeet Kumar), OA No.559/2025 (Pankaj Kumar), OA No.560/2025 (Abhishek Kumar) and other analogous Original Applications, wherein substantially similar disciplinary action has been challenged. Though the dates of appointment, disciplinary orders and appellate orders vary from case to case, the foundational allegations, nature of evidence relied upon and grievances raised by the applicants are broadly identical in all the matters.
7.2 In the respective Original Applications, charge-sheets under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 came to be issued alleging that the concerned applicants had indulged in impersonation in the written examination held on 15.06.2014 by arranging another person to appear in the examination in their place. The allegations in all these matters are substantially founded upon reports of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents/CFSL and Finger Print Experts indicating mismatch of handwriting and thumb impressions appearing on the OMR answer sheets, attendance sheets and declaration forms submitted during document verification.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 17 7.3 It has been specifically pleaded in most of the connected Original Applications that no handwriting expert or fingerprint expert was included in Annexure-IV appended to the charge-sheets for proving the relied upon forensic reports during inquiry proceedings. The applicants have asserted that despite specific requests made during departmental inquiry, neither the concerned experts were produced for examination nor effective opportunity of cross-examination was afforded before relying upon the forensic reports forming the sole basis of the charges.
7.4 The applicants in the connected Original Applications denied the allegations and consistently maintained that they themselves had appeared in all stages of the recruitment process including the written examination, aptitude test and document verification. It has also been brought on record in several cases that the applicants submitted defence notes, representations against inquiry reports and objections regarding non-production of expert witnesses, non-supply of relied upon documents and alleged violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
7.5 Thereafter, inquiry reports came to be submitted in the respective cases holding the charges proved mainly on the basis of handwriting and fingerprint examination reports, whereafter the respective Disciplinary Authorities imposed penalties of removal from service/removal from railway service upon the applicants. The statutory appeals preferred by the applicants were also rejected by the concerned Appellate Authorities, resulting in filing of the present bunch of Original Applications seeking quashing of the impugned disciplinary and appellate orders along with consequential reliefs.
8. The respondents have filed Counter Affidavits in the respective Original Applications controverting the averments made by the applicants and reiterating substantially similar objections and assertions as taken in the leading case. The respondents have maintained that the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 18 applicants secured appointment in Railway service by adopting unfair means through impersonation in the written examination conducted pursuant to CEN No.01/2014 and, therefore, serious misconduct stood established against them during subsequent verification and investigation.
8.1 It has been stated that during scrutiny of the recruitment records and subsequent investigation undertaken by the competent authorities, discrepancies were detected in the handwriting and thumb impressions appearing on the OMR answer sheets, attendance sheets and declaration forms submitted by the applicants at the stage of document verification. The respondents have relied upon the reports of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents/CFSL and Finger Print Experts indicating mismatch of handwriting and thumb impressions and have contended that the said expert reports clearly established that persons other than the applicants had appeared in the written examination conducted on 15.06.2014.
8.2 The respondents have further pleaded that disciplinary proceedings were initiated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and adequate opportunity was afforded to the applicants during inquiry proceedings. It has been asserted that the applicants were supplied charge-sheets, relevant documents and opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings and, therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to them.
8.3 The respondents have also emphasized that the post of Assistant Loco Pilot is a safety category post directly connected with railway operations and public safety and, therefore, allegations relating to impersonation and fraudulent entry into service are required to be viewed seriously. According to the respondents, once expert examination revealed mismatch of handwriting and thumb impressions, the disciplinary authorities were SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 19 justified in initiating departmental proceedings and imposing major penalties upon the concerned employees.
8.4 It has further been stated that strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials are not attracted in departmental proceedings and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officers are based upon relevant material available on record. The respondents have contended that the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot ordinarily be re-appreciated by this Tribunal in exercise of powers of judicial review, particularly when the disciplinary authorities have recorded concurrent findings of guilt on the basis of expert reports and inquiry proceedings conducted in accordance with law.
8.5 On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the respondents have maintained that the disciplinary proceedings, inquiry reports, punishment orders and appellate orders passed against the applicants are legal, valid and do not warrant interference by this Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in all the connected Original Applications have assailed the impugned orders. The submissions, as emerged from the pleadings and arguments advanced, are as follows:
9.1 The disciplinary proceedings forming the subject matter of the present bunch of cases stand vitiated on account of non-compliance of the prescribed procedure and violation of the principles of natural justice. The charge of impersonation, in all the cases, has been held proved solely on the basis of reports of handwriting and fingerprint experts, without the authors of such reports being examined in the departmental inquiry and without affording opportunity of cross-examination. Such expert opinion, being in the nature of opinion evidence, has been treated as conclusive without being duly proved in accordance with law.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 20 9.2 The inquiry proceedings have been conducted without examination of any witness and, in several cases, without a proper list of witnesses, thereby depriving the applicants of an effective opportunity to defend themselves. The relevant documents and original records relied upon in support of the charges were not supplied and the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 have not been adhered to.
9.3 The findings recorded in the inquiry reports are stated to be based on untested material and are not supported by legally admissible evidence, rendering the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority unsustainable.
9.4 The issue involved in the present bunch of cases is stated to be no longer res integra. In identical matters, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench had upheld the departmental action founded upon forensic and fingerprint expert reports. However, the said view was subsequently interfered with by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which directed fresh inquiry in accordance with law, and the said approach was ultimately affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9.5 On the basis of the aforesaid, the impugned orders in all the connected Original Applications are stated to be liable to be set aside with consequential reliefs.
10. The respondents, represented through their respective learned counsel appearing in the connected Original Applications, have opposed the claims of the applicants. The position emerging from the pleadings and the material placed on record across the bunch of cases is as follows:
10.1 The charge of impersonation in the present set of cases stands established on the basis of scientific examination conducted by competent authorities, including the Government Examiner of Questioned SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 21 Documents and the Finger Print Examiner. The reports indicate mismatch of handwriting and thumb impressions at different stages of the recruitment process, leading to the conclusion that the candidates had not themselves appeared in the written examination. The findings recorded in the departmental inquiry have been based on such material and have been concurrently upheld by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority.
10.2 The inquiry proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the applicants were afforded opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The applicants, along with their defence representatives, took part in the inquiry and submitted their replies at various stages. The procedure adopted in the inquiry is stated to be consistent with the applicable rules and does not suffer from any procedural irregularity so as to vitiate the proceedings.
10.3 The reliance placed on the reports of forensic and fingerprint experts is stated to be justified, as the same are based on scientific analysis carried out by recognized government authorities. Such reports are stated to constitute reliable material for the purpose of departmental proceedings, particularly in matters relating to impersonation in recruitment examinations. Reference has been made to earlier decisions wherein such reports have been accepted and relied upon in similar circumstances.
10.4 It has also been indicated that the applicants had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in certain cases and, pursuant to the directions issued therein, the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter and passed fresh speaking orders after affording opportunity of hearing. The impugned appellate orders are thus stated to be in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 22 10.5 It has also been emphasized that the post of Assistant Loco Pilot is of a sensitive nature involving safety of railway operations and any irregularity in the process of recruitment, particularly by way of impersonation, cannot be treated lightly. The penalty imposed is stated to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct established in the inquiry.
10.6 The reliance placed on the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court, as well as the decision of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal affirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, it has been stated that the said decisions are stated to have been rendered in the facts and circumstances of those respective cases. It has been reflected that in the present bunch of cases, the findings have been recorded on the basis of material available on record, including reports of competent expert authorities and the inquiry conducted under the applicable rules and the same have been considered by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities while passing the impugned orders.
10.7 On the basis of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed in the respective Original Applications are stated to be justified and not warranting interference.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in all the connected Original Applications at considerable length, perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties, examined the materials brought on record in the leading case as well as the connected matters and carefully considered the judicial precedents cited at the Bar.
12. Before proceeding to examine the controversy on merits, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 23 on behalf of the respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction and availability of alternative statutory remedy. The applicant has specifically pleaded that he is presently residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench and part of the cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Moreover, the respondents have participated in the proceedings on merits and the present bunch of matters has already been heard finally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is not inclined to non-suit the applicants on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
13. The objection regarding non-exhaustion of the remedy of revision also does not merit acceptance at this stage, particularly when the impugned orders are under challenge primarily on the ground of procedural infirmities and violation of principles of natural justice and the matters have already been heard finally on merits.
14. The core controversy involved in the present bunch of matters relates to the legality and sustainability of departmental proceedings initiated against the applicants on allegations that the candidates who appeared in the written examination were not the same persons who subsequently participated in document verification and entered service. The disciplinary proceedings in the present set of cases have substantially been founded upon reports received from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD)/Central Forensic Science Laboratory and Finger Print Experts indicating mismatch in handwriting and thumb impressions appearing on OMR sheets, attendance sheets and declaration forms.
15. Before proceeding further, it requires to be observed that allegations relating to impersonation in public employment cannot be treated lightly. Any attempt to secure public employment by fraudulent means strikes at the very root of fairness in public recruitment and assumes greater significance where the recruitment pertains to a safety category post in the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 24 Railways. Equally, there can also be no dispute with the settled principle that departmental proceedings are not governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials and the standard of proof required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but that of preponderance of probabilities.
16. However, while the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is undoubtedly limited, the requirement of conducting a fair inquiry consistent with the applicable statutory rules and principles of natural justice remains indispensable, particularly where a major penalty such as removal from service is sought to be imposed.
17. The respondents have strongly relied upon the reports of handwriting and fingerprint experts and have contended that such reports constitute scientific material sufficient to establish impersonation. It has also been contended that the applicants participated in the inquiry proceedings and were afforded adequate opportunity. On the other hand, the consistent grievance raised across the bunch of cases is that the inquiry proceedings were conducted without examination of witnesses, without proper proof of the relied upon documents, without examination of the authors of the expert reports and without affording effective opportunity of cross-examination.
18. Further, the issue involved in the present bunch of matters is no longer res integra and has been the subject matter of consideration before different Benches of this Tribunal, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. The Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, while dealing with an identical issue arising from the same recruitment process in Sanjeev Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 330/915/2021 decided on 13.10.2023, extensively considered the effect of reliance placed upon handwriting SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 25 expert reports in disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal, after examining the factual matrix and the procedural aspects of the inquiry, recorded the following findings:
"It is relevant to mention here that no witness has been named in the charge- sheet. When enquiry officer asked the Disciplinary Authority about adding the name of prosecution witness, he did not pass and outrightly refused the request of the Inquiry Officer. The entire proceedings, which has taken place in pursuance of charge sheet, needless to say that the respondents have not followed the procedure as provided under the Rules."
20. The Tribunal further observed:
"It is settled principle of law that expert report is mere opinion and it is not a conclusive proof of fact until and unless author is examined and cross- examined in the matter. It is also pertinent to mention here that several materials/documents have been denied by the competent authority despite repeated demand by the charged official. Thus, it can safely be held that proper and fair enquiry as required under law have not been conducted in the matter."
21. The Allahabad Bench also noticed that despite repeated requests, the applicants were not supplied the relevant documents and the relied upon materials were not duly proved during inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal ultimately concluded as under::
"Thus, no reliance upon such report can be placed and entire enquiry proceeding adopted by the respondents is vitiated."
22. Consequently, the Allahabad Bench set aside the removal order and appellate order while granting liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh/de novo inquiry in accordance with law.
23. The aforesaid order of the Allahabad Bench was carried in challenge before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Union of India vs. Sanjeev Kumar , Writ-A No. 964 of 2024. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and modified the relief granted by the Tribunal, but significantly upheld the course adopted by the Tribunal in directing fresh inquiry on account of violation of principles of natural justice. While considering the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the High Court observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 26 "6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent was removed from the service without supplying the relied upon documents and affording him opportunity to adduce evidence or cross-examine the witnesses. Further, the enquiry was not held in a fair manner.
7. Based on the observations and the findings recorded regarding violation of principle of natural justice, the OA was allowed and the directions, as noticed hereinbefore, were issued."
24. The High Court thereafter considered the submission advanced on behalf of the Union of India that reinstatement ought not to have been directed and, after discussing the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"13. The only challenge laid in the present writ petition pertains to the relief granted by the Tribunal, while quashing the order of punishment and appellate order, to the respondent, wherein while setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, reinstatement has been ordered with consequential benefits like pay, allowances etc.
14. The sheet anchor of the submissions made is judgement in the case of The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem (Supra), wherein based on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Rajit Singh : 2022 SCC Online SC 341 and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani : (2013) 6 SCC 530, observations were made that the High Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and that once the Court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee.
15. The said observations, which have been noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgements, are sought to be read out of context by counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Single Judge had directed reinstatement of the respondent therein - original writ petitioner in the service and payment of arrears to him. No direction was given for holding the re-enquiry from the stage that the enquiry stood vitiated. It is in that context, observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which read as under :
"6.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as the order of dismissal has been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 27 give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer's Report.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment (s) and order (s) passed by the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge of the High Court ordering reinstatement with back wages are hereby quashed and set aside. The case concerned is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report and after giving an opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer's Report. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of six months from today. However, at the same time, considering the fact that earlier also the dismissal order was set aside on the ground that the same was found to be in breach of principles of Natural Justice and the matter was remitted back and thereafter again when the fresh order of dismissal has been passed, which is again found to be in violation of principles of Natural Justice and again the matter is to be remitted back, we allow the present appeal with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent - delinquent quantified at Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be paid to the respondent - delinquent within a period of six weeks from today.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent."
16. It would be seen that the Court categorically laid down that the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent and give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the inquiry report and thereafter, pass order.
17. The plea raised that Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that no reinstatement can take place, goes against the basic principles wherein under the Service Rules the inquiry can be conducted only against an employee and as a natural consequence of setting aside of an order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is that the employee get reinstated back in service and once the re-enquiry has been ordered, unless the reinstatement takes place, the re-enquiry cannot be conducted.
18. Similar is the situation in the case of A. Masilamani (Supra) wherein also while setting aside the order of punishment only reinstatement was ordered."
25. The High Court also took note of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in identical matters and observed that the directions issued therein constituted a "balanced" approach. The High Court accordingly modified the Tribunal's order and held in paragraphs 25 & 26 as under:
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 28
25. ............. The disciplinary authority shall take decision on the aspect of the respondent's post reinstatement status either he can be reinstated or placed under suspension and pay subsistence allowance from the date of removal till completion of the fresh enquiry, which has to be calculated and disbursed at the earliest, further insofar as regulating the intervening period i.e. from the date of reinstatement or suspension till passing a fresh order in fresh enquiry, same shall be decided in accordance with provisions of law as to whether respondent is entitled to regularization of the period from removal till the passing of the final order by the disciplinary authority in the fresh enquiry.
26. The decision pertaining to the denovo enquiry shall be taken by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. In case no decision in this regard is taken during the said period, it shall be deemed that the petitioners do not intend to hold denovo enquiry. Further on initiation of the denovo enquiry, the amount of arrears of salary/subsistence allowance from the date of removal till date of reinstatement shall be paid latest within four weeks from the date the enquiry is initiated."
26. A somewhat different approach, however, came to be adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in identical matters arising out of the same recruitment process, wherein the Original Applications were dismissed and the departmental action founded upon handwriting and fingerprint expert reports was upheld. The Tribunal observed that departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of criminal trial and that the standard of proof applicable is that of preponderance of probabilities.
27. The Patna Bench further noticed that the reports of handwriting and fingerprint experts constituted scientific evidence which could legitimately be relied upon in departmental proceedings. The Tribunal also observed that allegations relating to impersonation in public recruitment involve serious misconduct affecting the sanctity of public employment.
28. However, the aforesaid judgment of the Patna Bench was subsequently carried before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which, while considering the issue of procedural fairness and compliance with principles of natural justice, interfered with the orders of removal and directed fresh inquiry in accordance with law.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 29
29. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, while dealing with identical matters arising out of the same recruitment process and considering the legality of the departmental proceedings founded upon allegations of impersonation, interfered with the orders of removal and directed fresh inquiry in accordance with law. The High Court observed in paragraph-7,8 and 9 as under:
"7. ... ... ... On this count, the petitioners have made out a case so as to interfere with the CAT order dated 21.02.2024 as well as removal orders, accordingly, they are set aside.
8. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to commence a fresh enquiry strictly adhering to the Rules, 1968, and complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Respective petitioners are hereby directed to co-operate in the disciplinary proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournment before the Inquiring Authority.
"9. Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to take the following decisions; the petitioners are to be reinstated or they have to be placed under suspension and further petitioners are entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of removal till completion of a fresh enquiry this has to be calculated and disbursed at the earliest and further insofar as regulating the intervening period from the date of reinstatement or suspension till passing a fresh order in fresh enquiry is required to be decided in accordance with the relevant provision of law as to whether petitioners are entitled to regularization of those period and it all depends on final order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a fresh inquiry, ... ... ..."
30. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court was thereafter carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Union of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 34374/2025, Union of India & Ors. vs. Amit Kumar & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, approved the course adopted by the Hon'ble High Court requiring fresh inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice and observed as under:
"2. The impugned judgments and orders dated 06.02.2025 and 05.03.2025 of the High Court require the petitioners to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with natural justice principles.
3. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Additional Solicitor General, expresses a concern about back-wages if the respondents are to be taken back in service.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 30
4. Obviously, the petitioners cannot be allowed to conduct an enquiry without taking back the respondents in service but for the limited purpose of concluding the same in accordance with law.
5. The High Court has been careful in recording that it is at the discretion of the petitioners as to how they would treat the respondents. The option of placing the respondents under suspension pending enquiry, is always open to the petitioners.
6. We find no reason to interfere; however, with the aforesaid observations, the special leave petitions are dismissed."
31. The aforesaid judicial pronouncements, when read conjointly, clearly establish that although expert reports may legitimately constitute relevant material in disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry proceedings must nevertheless satisfy the minimum requirements of procedural fairness contemplated under the applicable rules and principles of natural justice. The consistent judicial approach emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that where the inquiry proceedings suffer from serious procedural deficiencies relating to denial of opportunity, non-supply of relied upon documents, absence of witness examination or failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure, the appropriate course would be to set aside the punishment orders while preserving liberty with the respondents to conduct fresh/de novo inquiry in accordance with law.
32. This Tribunal is conscious that allegations of impersonation in public recruitment examinations are serious in nature and cannot be trivialized. At the same time, where civil consequences of grave magnitude are sought to be imposed, the disciplinary process must satisfy the minimum requirements of fairness and procedural propriety. The present order, therefore, should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicants, but is confined to the legality and procedural sustainability of the impugned disciplinary proceedings.
33. Coming to the facts of the present bunch of matters, the record reveals that in several cases no oral witnesses were examined during SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 31 inquiry proceedings and the authors of the handwriting/fingerprint expert reports were not produced during the inquiry. The records further indicate that objections relating to non-supply of documents and denial of opportunity to effectively contest the expert reports were raised by the applicants during the course of inquiry proceedings themselves.
34. This Tribunal is conscious that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings nor can it undertake re-appreciation of evidence. However, where the fairness of the inquiry process itself stands substantially affected, interference within the limited scope of judicial review becomes permissible.
35. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the present bunch of matters, and particularly in view of the principles laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Apex Court in identical matters arising out of the same recruitment process, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by setting aside the impugned punishment orders while preserving liberty with the respondents to conduct fresh/de novo inquiry strictly in accordance with law.
36. Accordingly, the impugned orders of punishment/removal as well as the appellate orders impugned in the respective Original Applications are hereby set aside.
37. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to initiate and conclude fresh/de novo disciplinary proceedings against the applicants strictly in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and after ensuring full compliance with the principles of natural justice, including supply of relied upon documents, examination of relevant witnesses, and adequate opportunity of defence and cross-examination.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 32
38. The respondents shall further be at liberty to take an appropriate decision regarding the status of the applicants after reinstatement, including placing them under suspension pending inquiry, in accordance with law.
39. The question relating to back wages, consequential benefits and regularization of the intervening period shall abide by the outcome of the fresh inquiry and shall be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules and the final orders that may be passed by the competent authority in the fresh proceedings.
40. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the connected Original Applications succeed to the extent indicated hereinabove and are accordingly allowed in part in terms of the directions contained in paragraphs 36 to 40 of this order.
42. There shall be no order as to costs.
43. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on the record of all connected matters.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA