High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2895 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ambesh Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- Rajnish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. In compliance of previous order, the petitioner is present in person. Heard Sri Satish Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.11.2021, in O.A. No. 330/00642/2015, whereby challenge made by the petitioner to an order dated 5.2.2015, passed by respondent no. 3, i.e. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, has been turned down. By the said order of respondent no. 3, candidature of the petitioner for Group D post was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in RRC/RRB Examination for appointment in Railways for his entire life. The facts relevant for purposes of instant writ petition are that the petitioner applied in prescribed format for recruitment on Group D post in Railways, in pursuance of Employment Notice dated 11.8.2012. He was declared successful in the written examination as well as physical efficiency test. At the stage of document verification, the respondent authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25.7.2014, calling upon him to show cause as to why his entire examination should not be cancelled, as on forensic examination of his handwriting, it had transpired that the signatures/writings on application form, attendance sheet and answer sheet, were of different persons. Thereby, it was sought to be inferred that the petitioner did not appear in the written examination and tried to procure job by fraudulent means. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice, stating that he did not commit any fraud, nor indulged in any illegal activity. Although he was indisposed, but he appeared in the written examination. He further stated that had he not been ill, he would have performed much better in the written examination. He further stated that all the allegations levelled against him are false, baseless and beyond comprehension. However, reply submitted by the petitioner did not find favour with the respondents and by order dated 5.2.2015, his candidature was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in RRC/RRB Examination for lifetime. Before the tribunal, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that there had been violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given copy of the reports of forensic expert and also other documents from which it was inferred that the handwriting did not match. The petitioner also relied on a communication by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory dated 21.4.2016, addressed to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Gorakhpur, informing it that the Laboratory is overloaded with work and was not in position to accept any fresh job and that it would take more than two years time in examining the documents in respect of which the Recruitment Board wanted its opinion. On basis of the said communication, it was sought to be contended that in fact, the Forensic Laboratory did not carry out any examination of documents and the alleged report on basis of which the exam of the petitioner was cancelled, is a manipulated document.
Legal Reasoning
The Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept the first contention regarding breach of principles of natural justice in not supplying report of Forensic Examiner on the ground that reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice was vague. On the second aspect, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the fact that the Central Forensic Science Laboratory had refused to accept request of the respondents for forensic examination of documents on account of the heavy burden of work, does not lead to an inference that the documents were not got examined by forensic experts, nor on basis of the same any relief could be granted to the petitioner when the allegation falls in the sphere of forgery and impersonation.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice is very specific and clearly controverts the allegation that the petitioner had committed any fraud in writing the examination. He further submitted that the reply was given by a person appearing for a Group D post and not by any legal expert and the said fact should have been considered by the tribunal while considering the reply. He further submitted that the communication dated 21.4.2016 goes to show that the Forensic Laboratory did not examine the documents and the alleged forensic report on which reliance was placed, was a manipulated one. Per contra, Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4, submitted that the documents were got examined from General Examiner of Questionable Documents and not from Central Forensic Science Laboratory. He submitted that the respondents are ready to provide the petitioner copies of the reports, as well as documents, on which reliance had been placed by the Railways, in holding that the petitioner had not written the examination himself and also fresh opportunity of hearing. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, we are of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be proper for us to express any opinion regarding authenticity of the report of the forensic examiner, upon which reliance is being placed by the respondents. We leave it open to the petitioner to raise all possible pleas and contentions, upon receipt of copy of the report. The respondents shall thereafter consider the contentions so raised, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal stands modified and superseded by the instant order and the order dated 5.2.2015 by respondent no. 3, stands quashed. The petition stands allowed to the extent noted above. (Dinesh Pathak, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.04.08 16:58:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad