Ambesh Kumar Tripathi v. Union Of India And 4 Others

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. 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/- BANERJEE Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad