Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Pawan Kumar vs M/O Railways on 22 November, 2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
O.A. No.021/0844/2016
&`
M.A.No.771/2019 in O.A. No.021/0844/2016
Date of CAV: 20.11.2019. Date of Order : 22.11.2019.
Between :
Pawan Kumar, s/o Sri Janardhan Singh,
Aged about 25 yrs, Occ:Unemployed,
r/o Village & Post Dhanchhuhun,
PS-Chauri, District Bhojpur, Bihar-802 208. ...Applicant
And
1. The Union of India, M/o Railways,
Rep., by its General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
III Floor, Secunderabad-500 071.
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
First Floor, „C‟ Block, Secunderabad-500 071.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ...Mr.G.Trinadha Rao
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Patnaik, SC for Rlys.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.S.N.TERDAL, MEMBER (JUDL.)
THE HON'BLE MRS.NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (ADMN.)
.........2
O.A. No.021/0844/2016
2
ORDER
By MRS.NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (ADMN.) The applicant has filed this OA challenging the orders of the Respondent No.2 dated 10.11.2015, in not considering his case for appointment even after qualifying the written examination, PET and Medical, and debarring him from appearing in all the examinations conducted by any Railway Recruitment Board/Railway Recruitment Cell (RRB/RRC),
2. Brief facts of the case:
The applicant in response to the Railway Recruitment Cell (South Central Railway) notification No.RRC/SCR/Group- D/1/2013, dated 30.08.2013, had applied for the recruitment to the erstwhile Group-D posts in South Central Railway and was called for the written examination after granting him the admit card bearing Roll No.91419821. On 3011.2014, the applicant appeared for the written examination at Centre Code No.91067. At the Centre, the applicant has submitted that he was videographed along with other candidates and his left hand thumb impression on O.M.R. and attendance chart was taken before permitting him to appear for the written examination.
O.A. No.021/0844/2016 3
3. The applicant submitted that the respondents obtained a declaration from him and his signature and full name in the OMR was also taken. The invigilator checked his voter identity card and after satisfying himself permitted the applicant to give written examination.
4. The applicant has submitted that he was successful in the written examination and was called for appearing for physical test. The applicant attended the physical test on 27.06.2015. After conclusion of the written test and the physical examination, the applicant was called for medical examination on 01.09.2015 at Tirupati for document verification. All the necessary documents were checked by the respondents and found to be correct. The applicant was found medically fit in all respects for the said post.
5. The applicant has further submitted that he was again called for verification through a letter dated 01.10.2015 and he appeared before the authorities on 14.10.2015 and verification of his signature and LTI were done again and the applicant was made to give a fresh declaration.
O.A. No.021/0844/2016 4
6. The applicant has further submitted that after the second verification, as he was awaiting for the appointment letter, he received the impugned letter dated 10.11.2015, wherein the 2nd respondent was proposed to debar the applicant for life from appearing in all the examinations conducted by any RRB/RRC over Indian Railways for his entire life time period and he was given an opportunity to submit a representation against such action within one month from the date of receipt of the said letter. It was alleged in the impugned letter that the applicant resorted to impersonation and his handwriting and signature were compared and found different by the handwriting expert and the respondent no.2 concluded that the applicant had not appeared for the written examination and an impersonator had appeared in the written examination on his behalf. The respondents contend that the applicant tried to procure Government job by fraud and criminal means. The applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 24.11.2015 explaining all the above points and that his LTIs were there on record, which would prove that he was physically present and wrote the examination himself and the videos would also establish that he had written the examination himself and the allegations are absolutely false.
O.A. No.021/0844/2016 5
7. The respondents in their reply statement have filed the Forensic Document Examiner (GEQD) expert opinion dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure.R-3), wherein it is categorically stated that after careful and thorough examination of the original documents in all aspects of forensic document science, the case of Shri Pawan Kumar, Roll No.91419821, the writings and differences indicate different authorship.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Others v. Subodh Kuamr Banerjee since deceased and after him his LRs & Others (1964 AIR (SC) 529) of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court;
(ii) Sanjiv v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007 CriLJ 2020) of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
9. On perusal of the above judgments (supra), it is seen that as per the case in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Others v. Subodh Kuamr Banerjee, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had held that "the main ground of opposition was that the will had not been properly executed and attested, though it was also contended that it was not genuine, and the testator did not have testamentary capacity O.A. No.021/0844/2016 6 at the time of signing the alleged will and that the execution of the will had been obtained by undue influence, fraudulent misrepresentation and coercion.................................................. therefore, it is difficult to generalise and it will indeed be dangerous to base a decision upon such inconclusive data............................the evidence of the expert therefore in these circumstances is not conclusive and cannot prove that the signature at the bottom of the will could not possibly have been made on August 29, 1943 on which date it purports to have been made....................................it would be indeed dangerous to base a decision upon such inconclusive data".
10. In the case of Sanjiv v. State of Madhya Pradesh, before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it is seen that the above judgment pertains to criminal case, where the standard of proof required is far greater than in the present case before the Tribunal.
11. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed. The M.A.No.771/2019 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
( NAINI JAYASEELAN ) ( S.N.TERDAL )
MEMBER (ADMN.) MEMBER (JUDL.)
DATED: this the 22nd day of November 2019
Dsn