Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri R.P. Chauhan vs Union Of India Through on 25 March, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2282/2007 Wednesday, this the 25th day of March 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri R.P. Chauhan S/o late Shri Phool Chand Chauhan Ex. Mobile Booking Clerk DRMs Office North Eastern Railway Lucknow ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri B.S. Mainee) Versus Union of India through 1. General Manager North Eastern Railway Gorakpur 2. Divl. Railway Manager North Eastern Railway Lucknow ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.L. Dhawan) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
A disciplinary proceeding is conducted and regulated not by the strict rules of evidence but on the principle of preponderance of probability, which does not mean that legally inadmissible evidence could be introduced to hold a delinquent official guilty and to punish him. No doubt, in judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view but what is not precluded is to scan through the disciplinary proceedings in the backdrop of prejudice caused either on account of violation of principles of natural justice or non-following of the procedural rules.
2. Onus and burden is the concept in Indian Evidence Act. In the disciplinary proceedings, the foremost task of the prosecution, i.e., the authority conducting the disciplinary proceedings, to produce sufficient evidence and material, which points out towards the guilt of the delinquent official and if it is successfully done, only then the burden shifts to the delinquent to disprove it. It is not that the prosecution has not been able to establish by way of a document and evidence adduced in the inquiry, yet the delinquent has been asked to rebut it by way of producing it on defence. This concept is alien not only as per the Indian Evidence Act but also the governing of disciplinary proceedings.
3. In this view of the matter, the Mobile Booking Clerk has impugned respondents order dated 3.10.2006 where pursuant upon a finding of no guilt in favour of him and on disagreement the disciplinary authority has imposed a penalty of removal from service. Also assailed is an appellate authoritys order dated 13.2.2007 upholding the penalty of removal. Applicant has also impugned the order passed in revision dated 20.7.2007 whereby the punishment has been upheld.
4. As a preliminary objection resorting to Rule 24 (2) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short Rules 1968), learned counsel for respondents would contend that for Groups C and D employees, a special provision for revision to the General Manager is a statutory remedy available and as the applicant has not exhausted it, the OA is barred under Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. A Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.S. Rathore, AIR 1990 SC 10 has been relied upon by learned counsel for respondents to support his plea.
5. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in Smt. Meera Devi v. Union of India & others (OA-549/2006) decided on 28.3.2007 where the factor of Rule 24 (2) of the Rules 1968 has been reiterated by holding that such a remedy is available.
6. On this preliminary objection raised by respondents, Shri B.S. Mainee, learned counsel for applicant contends that for a penalty of removal, which is confirmed in appeal, the next departmental remedy is revision under Section 25 of the Rules 1968 and Rule 24 (2) would apply only in a case when the very basis of the inquiry and the procedure adopted is being assailed by the aggrieved person, as such it is only the revisional authority under Section 25 of the Rules 1968, who has to give cognizance to decide the matter.
7. On a careful consideration of the contentions raised by the parties regarding preliminary objection, it is found that though there may be statutory remedies, yet non-exhaustion of it would not cause any infringement to Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. When the aforesaid remedy is a discretionary remedy to a delinquent official in the light of the penalty imposed and subjected to the grounds raised, what is permissible to the General Manager to entertain a revision of railway servant after dismissal of an appeal, which does not talk of the type of penalty imposed, clearly shows that it is only available as a statutory remedy to a railway servant when he seeks and restricts his revision only to the revision of punishment. In such view of the matter, in the instant case, as the applicant has not only sought quashing of the penalty but has also questioned the procedure adopted on the basis of which allegedly on no evidence, he has been punished without any misconduct, remedy lies under Rule 24 of the Rules 1968 with General Manager, which the applicant has exhausted. Hence we find that the requirement of Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been met with. The decisions in S.S. Rathores case (supra) as well as in Meera Devis case (supra) were in different circumstances and would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the objection by the learned counsel for respondents is overruled.
8. Applicant under the scheme of Railway Board promulgated in 1973 was deputed as Volunteer Mobile Booking Clerk / Part-time Booking Clerk. Applicant having worked for the period from 28.4.1983 to 25.2.1984 was regularized and later on when it was found that the applicant has produced a forged certificate, which has been found in the preliminary investigation where one Avadh Bihari Shukla the concerned person, i.e., the then Commercial Superintendent on the back of the certificate, written that the certificate had not been issued by him and applicant has been found to have managed his appointment on the basis of a forged certificate whereas either the muster roll or the salary register does not show the name of the applicant as working as part-time Mobile Booking Clerk, as such the disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
9. Along with the memorandum under Rule 9 of the Rules 1968, statement of Shri R.P. Chauhan, MBC / Gorakhpur Cantt (applicant in the present OA), statement of R.S. Mehta recorded during the preliminary investigation have been annexed as documents relied upon where only Shri V.K. Pandey, the then Vigilance Inspector and Shri Shukla, Commercial Superintendent were listed as reliable witnesses. During the course of inquiry, Shri Shukla, Commercial Superintendent, who had issued the certificate, deposed that the earlier statement made in the preliminary investigation has been forged and it was at the behest of the Vigilance Inspector. He has testified that the applicant has worked but inadvertently his name could not be entered in the muster roll whereas regarding salary it is stated that the grievance of salary has been raised by the applicant, which has been put forwarded to the higher authorities but was not resolved.
10. Another witness B.N. Singh has also testified during the course of inquiry and as per his statement, if the applicant had not worked during the period, his name would not have been shown in the list prepared by Mool Chand and testified that the name of the applicant in the document dated 25.2.1992 stands at Sl.No.1, which proves his working as Mobile Booking Clerk.
11. Shri B.S. Mainee, learned counsel would contend by relying upon decision of this Tribunal in Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & others (OA-2186/2007) decided on 9.9.2008 as well as the decision in Suresh Chandra Verma v. Union of India & another (OA-2235/2007) decided on 23.3.2009 to contend that in all fours his case is covered by the decisions cited above rather the present OA is on a better footing where the period of his working has been testified by the concerned person, i.e., Commercial Superintendent.
12. Learned counsel would further contend that the DTC book, pay rolls and the railway chart etc. have not been provided to the applicant despite demanded on the ground that the documents are not available. It is stated that it is highly illogical that when muster roll of that period has been kept on record by the respondents, the other documents, which formed basis of the muster roll, are being destroyed, which proves malafide on the part of the respondents.
14. It is further stated that on non-furnishing of these documents by the respondents, applicant could not effectively produce his defence, which has ultimately prejudiced him. As such, the penalty imposed would be nullity in law.
15. Learned counsel would also contend that in the disagreement note, the disciplinary authority on the ipsi dixit has taken a final view of the matter and the statement recorded by Shri Shukla in the inquiry has been discarded and has been given a go-by and rather the statement during the preliminary investigation where the applicant has no opportunity to cross-examine Shri Shukla was relied upon, is in contravention of Railway Boards instructions, which remains only the statement made during the course of preliminary investigation admissible if it is accepted on authentication by the maker and proved accordingly. It is stated that statement during the course of preliminary investigation cannot be made admissible to hold him guilty.
16. Learned counsel would also state that Shri Radhey Shyam whose testimony was relied upon by the disciplinary authority has not been listed as a witness in the inquiry and a right to cross-examine has been denied to him, which contravenes on the same footing a fundamental right in the departmental inquiry and vitiates the inquiry as well.
17. On the other hand, Shri R.L. Dhawan, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the burden to prove the employment when the forged certificate has been proved to its hilt by the respondents has not been discharged by the applicant, for which the disciplinary authority has given 10 days time to the applicant to produce documents to show his working as Part-time Mobile Booking Clerk, which having not been furnished, relying upon the decision of High Court in Automobile Association Upper India (M/s.) v. The P.O. Labour Court II & another, 2006 VI AD (Delhi) 180, it is stated that once the burden is discharged by the respondents, it shifts to the applicant and non-discharging of this the guilt against the applicant has been proved.
18. Learned counsel also states that DTC book is only made on the basis of muster roll and is not relevant for any purposes, including defence of the applicant and as it is not proved or established by the applicant that in what manner he has been prejudiced by non-supply of the documents, the inquiry cannot be vitiated and for this the decision of Apex Court in Syndicate Bank & others v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, 2006 (2) AISLJ 285 has been relied upon.
19. Learned counsel has further relied upon a decision of Apex Court in P.B. Ahir v. State of Maharasthra 2007 (1) SCC (L&S) 239 ___________ and decision of coordinate Bench in M.K. Sharma v. Union of India & others, 2009 SLJ (1) CAT 173 to contend that if the documents are not traceable, there is no flaw in non-supply of the documents.
20. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material placed on record.
21. Removal and dismissal from service of a government servant is like a capital punishment. It is virtually a death of government servant when the emoluments, which he earns through service, have been stopped. If it is open on a procedure, which is far from observing principle of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
22. The Apex Court in Mathura Prasad v. Union of India & others, AIR 2007 SC 381 ruled that taking livelihood of a person without following due procedure of law cannot be sustained in law.
23. In the instant case, the procedure has been adopted in such a manner that all the norms and standing instructions of the Railway Board have been ignored and an attitude has been shown by the departmental authorities to hold the applicant guilty at any cost even when the charge has not been proved. The inquiry officer in his report has vehemently examined the documents and the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter a finding has been recorded, which is reproduced as under:-
Conclusions From the above facts, it is clear that the main and most important charge levelled against the charged officer is about the working days certificate................. and in that connection the certificates given by Shri Shukla in support of that and the muster sheet are said to have proved about the forged working certificate. The Prosecution witness Shri Shukla, had not only, during another enquiry, supported about the certificate issued by him; but at the same time he has supported that the charged officer during the said period has worked under him. In this view of the matter, the Prosecution witness Shri Shukla during the enquiry has supported the facts of R.U.D.2. On the other side, in his clarification letter before the enquiry, he has contravened the facts of his given statement during the enquiry. So far as the question of name of the charged officer in the Muster Sheet is concerned, in view of some Prosecution Witnesses Shri Pandey and Shri Shukla in their respective replies No. (2) (R.O.P.2.) and (R.O.P.-(4)) having indicated probability about the name having been left out while noting the names from the Attendance Register or D.T.C., this question losses its importance.
Whatever documents have been shown in Annexure III with the charge-sheet by the Prosecution, do not throw any light as to what was the arrangement for presence and payment for M.B.Cs., but all the facts are about appointment; whereas the charged officer has mentioned about non-payment of salary during the enquiry. Therefore, the letter (R.U. D.4) issued by the Divisional Personnel Office in connection with payment does not have any importance, because for the rejection of the statement of the charged officer, any document connected with the Commercial Department and D.T.C. Book, any voucher / paper issued by the station in regard to payment in general, are not there on the record, nor the Prosecution side has been able to prove it. In addition to Muster sheet, in connection with the presence the Prosecution side has been unsuccessful to produce Attendance Register during the enquiry.
On para 2 of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.4.1983 produced by the charged officer, a proforma has been issued about the payment. The Prosecution has been unsuccessful to collect any papers in this connection. In connection with the work and payment, these papers are important for Commercial Department and they should be in the custody.
In R.U.D.4 it has been mentioned about examination of the Bill Register and Pay orders between the period from September 1983 to July 1990, but, for example, the numbers and dates of the bills or pay order have not been indicated as a result of which at least they could be examined.
It is clear from the above facts, that the Prosecution side has been unsuccessful in prove the charges levelled against the charged officer because they have not proved the fact of forged certificate about the working period, but have accepted in clear terms that the charged officer had worked under them. This is an apparent fact.
DECISION After considering the documents and witnesses produced by the Prosecution, it is decided that the charge levelled against the charged officer is not proved.
24. The above finding in the prerogative of the disciplinary authority was disagreed to and rather forming a tentative view and according the applicant a reasonable opportunity to show cause, the disciplinary authority confirmed on proving the charges and thereafter issued a show cause notice to the applicant. In our considered view, though it lies within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to have a different view then what has been arrived at by the inquiry officer, yet the view expressed for being commented upon in furtherance of and in compliance of principles of natural justice must not show the pre-determination of mind by the disciplinary authority or his bent of mind to punish the applicant without receiving his say in the form of representation. This amounts to a post-decisional hearing, which cannot be countenanced as ruled by the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & another, (1999) 7 SCC 739.
25. However, when such a disagreement has been commented upon, the disciplinary authority in its order indicating that the name of the applicant should be on muster sheet whereas the name of the applicant was missing, also observed that the status of the charged official at that time was neither regular, nor substitute, permanent and temporary. However, it is also observed that had the charged official worked during the above period, some payments would have been made and when the same have not been made, it is sine qua non of the non-working of the applicant as Mobile Booking Clerk. It is only on this basis that the disciplinary authority arrived at a finding of the guilt against the applicant and punished him with an extreme punishment of removal on the ground of authentication of certificate by Shri Shukla, which has been discarded only on the ground that Shri Shukla earlier in the vigilance inquiry having accepted that the signatures on the back of certificate produced by the applicant do not belong to him held the document of preliminary inquiry proved against the applicant. Authenticating the statement of this witness in the course of disciplinary proceedings, we are shocked to notice such a strange procedure in derogation of the rules has been adopted. A preliminary inquiry statement does not form part of a departmental inquiry report. However, when the witnesses are not available and there are some administrative exigencies, which compel the authorities to take into consideration those statements, there is dispensation of examination of such a witness in the inquiry and cross-examination by the concerned would not constitute a violation to the principles of natural justice, yet when the witness who deposed in the inquiry denied and questioned his earlier statement, then the statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose and what is permissible is the statement recorded in the inquiry.
26. In such view of the matter, a clear assertion and admission on part of the prosecution witness that the applicant had worked as Part-time Mobile Booking Clerk for the period referred to above, which certificate has been produced by him, has been imply proved. The muster roll payments are ancillary to this certificate. If the certificate is genuine, then these secondary evidences would be less relevant to the issue. However, on this ground also, the applicant has sought for additional documents, i.e., DTC book and the attendance register of Mobile Booking Clerks, which have been denied on the ground that the same were not available on record.
27. In Suresh Chandra Vermas case (supra), a similar plea when taken by the respondents has been met with while referring to the Railway Boards instructions of 1980, which clearly rule that if a railway servant asks in his defence additional documents, it is obligatory upon the respondents, more particularly, the inquiry officer to provide those documents and in case of non-furnishing, sufficient reasons have to be recorded.
28. Respondents are custodian of the records. It is very illogical to hold or at least to assume that whereas all the documents relating to engagement of the applicant as Mobile Booking Clerk, i.e., muster sheet and pay slips have been retained by the respondents but the DTC book as well as attendance register have been destroyed or are not available. If such a record is not made available by the respondents, in such circumstances, an adverse inference should be drawn that despite availability, documents have been avoided to be furnished to the applicant, as in the circumstances, the documents would have proved the genuineness of the claim of the applicant regarding his working as Part-time Mobile Booking Clerk.
29. At one point of time, learned counsel for applicant has resorted to non-examination of PW, Shri Radhey Shyam whose testimony has been relied upon not only by the inquiry officer but also by the disciplinary authority. We find that the Apex Court in Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. & others, 2000 (1) ATJ (SC) 244 and in Ministry of Finance & another v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 ruled that any document introduced during the course of inquiry cannot be proved legally unless the maker of the document is summoned and afforded an opportunity for being cross examined by the delinquent. Not doing so has certainly prejudice the applicant in his defence, which vitiates the inquiry.
30. Learned counsel for respondents has drawn our attention to the decision of Railway Boards circular of 1973 wherein the Mobile Booking Clerks have been decided to be engaged only to assist the current staff but distribution of tickets is not the duty attached to the post, has been belied and contradicted by the statement of the applicant recorded during the course of inquiry where it has been clearly admitted that Mobile Booking Clerks were given tickets for sale only. In the above view of the matter, this objection raised by the respondents learned counsel cannot be sustained.
31. Taking a holistic view and also in the light of the following observations made in Suresh Chandra Vermas case (supra):
15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
16. From the list appended by the applicant along with his rejoinder of part-time booking clerks of the Division, which has been certified as true copy by the respondents, name of the applicant figures at Serial No. 70 and the days of working shown is 214. This documents cannot be disputed, as it has come from the source which maintains it. The aforesaid document has been procured from General Manager, Vigilance. This leaves no doubt in our mind that the applicant had been in the list of part-time booking clerks. Though the stand of the respondents that neither the muster roll nor the pay slips indicates that the applicant was ever engaged as part-time booking clerk is concerned, the same has been on the basis of the documents brought in the inquiry though not exhibited. Even applying the preponderance of probability test, by non-authentication of these documents by the maker, as no official witness was called to certify that the documents now shown are authenticated copies deprives the applicant a right to cross-examine these witnesses to establish his defence. Documents cannot be brought on record unless the maker of it examined in the inquiry. The Apex Court in SB Rameshs case (supra) has clearly ruled that an introduction of documents without calling its maker and subjecting it to cross-examination by the charged officer is a procedure in violation of the principles of natural justice. As these documents have not been brought on record, in accordance with law, any reliance on it to hold the applicant guilty cannot be sustained. In G.C. Jatav Vs. Secretary-Cum-Chairman, SLJ 2005 (1) CAT 280 and also in Bhagwan Singhs case, the Tribunal has clearly followed the dicta.
17. We find from record that applicant has demanded during the course of inquiry certain documents, which included register of MBC, working record, memorandum, paid vouchers and DTC register. These documents could have demonstrated the working of the applicant. The only ground to deny these documents is that the documents are not available. It is very strange that whereas even muster roll and pay slips register had been maintained but once it comes to furnish these documents to the applicant, such an unjustifiable and unreasonable ground has been taken. The documents have been denied on the ground that there is no rule to maintain these documents and as the applicants name was not in the muster roll, the documents would not have contained his name. This is only hearsay on surmises. In fact, the documents required for defence are integral part and have to be served upon the concerned, as ruled by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Triloki Naths case (supra), non-supply of which has vitiated the inquiry, as the applicant has been prejudiced in his defence.
18. Railway Board in its letters dated 10.10.1961 and 20.2.1980 clearly ruled that under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, the additional documents, if any, asked by the charged Railway servant, the inquiry officer will take a decision with regard to the relevancy of it in relation to the defence and summon the documents.
19. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any such exercise undertaken by inquiry officer and on its ipsi dixit, the documents have been denied, which has prejudiced the applicant and vitiated the inquiry.
20. We find that the vigilance inquiry has been conducted prior to the disciplinary proceedings where neither any witness relating to the vigilance inquiry was examined nor the vigilance inquiry report has been served upon the applicant. The fact of the matter that much reliance has been placed by the inquiry officer on his report to hold the applicant guilty of the charge, yet non-supply of the report has prejudiced the applicant and even if, it is not asked for, any reliance on it, it is obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to furnish the same to applicant failing which the inquiry would vitiate in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Kashinath Dixits case (supra).
21. As regards examination of prosecution witnesses and witnesses called in defence, their preliminary inquiry statements have been relied upon by the inquiry officer on the ground that being retiree, their address are not known. In this regard, it is stated that being pensioners, their pension is disbursed through department and their addresses are very much available, yet no sincere efforts have been made to call for their presence. A similar controversy when raised in Railways case where such a plea was taken was repelled in CM Jains case, which has been relied upon by the Tribunal in a Co-ordinate Bench in Bharat Singhs case (supra). Moreover, in the matter of examination of witnesses, examination of witness is mandatory as per Railway Boards letter dated 2.5.2007. In case of bringing their earlier statements in the inquiry itself is concerned, unless the statements are authenticated by its maker with an opportunity to cross-examination to the applicant, such statements cannot be brought on record. As this has deprived the applicant a reasonable opportunity of defence and once these statements have been recorded during the course of preliminary inquiry where the applicant has not been given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, this becomes more important to call these witnesses for cross-examination. As in the present case, no document has been established through cross-examination of PWs, non-calling of these witnesses has certainly vitiated the inquiry, on causing prejudice to the applicant.
22. Much has been said to the statement made by the applicant on 20.1.1992, which has been treated admission of the applicant. In this regard, on perusal of the record, what we find that during the course of the vigilance inquiry, certain clarifications were sought from the applicant where he has not accepted that he had never worked as part-time mobile clerk but given a valid explanation of the allegations and when he was confronted as to only working for 25 days, the explanation tendered was he had worked in the last week of November, 1983 and who had given him 214 days certificate, he showed his inability to comment. In such view of the matter, a person can only be held guilty of the charge on admission, the same has to be treated as a whole and it is not permissible for the respondents legally to rely upon inculpatory part and to leave exculpatory one. Moreover, the alleged admission is neither conditional, equivocal nor an absolute one, which in view of Jagdish Prasad Saxenas case (supra) cannot be treated to be an admission to hold the applicant guilty of the charge.
23. It is trite that in a departmental inquiry, the burden to establish the charge is on the respondents. It is only discharged when their part is over. Thereafter to disapprove it is the duty of the delinquent. In the instant case, for want of additional documents as well as various illegalities cropped up in the inquiry, the first part of establishing the guilt having not been discharged, the burden cannot shift on the applicant and this is a case where on deprivation of a reasonable opportunity, the applicant has been punished.
24. As ruled by the Apex Court in Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 381, that taking livelihood of a person without follow due process of law is not legally tenable. In our considered view, reliance on the statement of the applicant dated 21.9.1992 is not correct in law.
25. Though several other pleas have also been taken by the applicant, yet on the discussed legal infirmities, we are of the considered view that the applicant has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity to establish his defence, the present is a case, which in all fours is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (OA 2186/2007) decided on 19.9.2007.
26. Insofar as preliminary objection is concerned, as the applicant has been residing after removal in Delhi, the factum of which has not been disputed by the respondents, as per Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, this petition filed before the Principal Bench is within jurisdiction.
27. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed to the extent that impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith. However, they are at liberty, if so advised, to resume the proceedings from the stage of serving the documents sought for by the applicant and examination of witnesses. Thereafter on finalization of the disciplinary proceedings to decide the intervening period from the date of removal till reinstatement in accordance with rules and instructions and law on the subject. No costs. we are of the considered view that the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities have flouted all the norms in the disciplinary proceedings and rather in violation of it when the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been agreed to upon without dealing with the contentions and going into the legality of the procedure, which they are mandated not only under Rule 22 but also Rule 25 of the Rules 1968, such orders cannot stand scrutiny of law, being non-speaking orders issued without application of mind.
32. Contention of learned counsel for respondents that decision in Rajesh Kumars case (supra) has been challenged in the High Court of Delhi and decision in Suresh Chandra Vermas (supra) is yet to be delivered to the applicant therein, would not constitute any impediment for us to agree and treat as binding precedent, as the decisions are yet to be modified or overturned by the High Court.
33. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents relying upon Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules 1968 contends that examining the circumstances the matter shall be remanded back to the respondents. On examination of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not forged in any manner his entry as Mobile Booking Clerk and the charge was not proved against him and at this remotest point of time when the applicant stood confirmed as Mobile Booking Clerk and independently on the evidence of prosecution, a charge has not been proved, we do not find on examination that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the respondents.
34. Resultantly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the applicant in service with all consequences admissible in law. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/