Jitendra Singh vs EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 28 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandr MA No. 601 of MA bearing no. 601/2025 ha for condoning the delay in fil We have perused the MA. The surgery for kidney transplantat g medical reports; and the submi ant give sufficient reasons to c rdingly, the MA for condonation ondoned in filing, the O.A. will OA No.708 of s is second round of litigation. unal vide O.A. No. 167/2025 n on 26.02.2025 with liberty to fi s OA has been filed by the ap he facts and circumstances of th ed to quash and set asi tion/Vig./RRB/MFP/ Major/So nder the signature of the /TRO, East Central Railway, S removed from the railway serv e facts and circumstances of th d to quash and set aside the unil quiry Officer vide Inquiry Repor jor/SEE/11/2020 dated 10.03.20

R ra, Member (A) f 2025 as been filed by the applicant ling Original Application No. e reasons stated in the MA with tion of his wife along with the issions advanced by the counsel condone the delay in filing the n of delay is allowed. Since, the l now be adjudicated on merits.

The applicant has approached 5 which was disposed of as ile fresh OA. pplicant seeking the following he case this Hon'ble Court may ide the order bearing no. on/11/2020, dated 19.05.2021 Senior Divisional Electric Sonepur whereby the applicant vice in arbitrary and erroneous he case this Hon'ble Court may lateral inquiry report submitted rt bearing no. Vi/OP/Vig/RRB/ 021 recommending for ex-parte

y t d / Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench action aga not proved 8.03 In th be please bearing 02.09.2020 of this cas 8.04 Other For delineated

2. The pursuant t Recruitme applicant which he Aptitude/P verificatio Con he joined ECR in th successful continued post of Se posted a Lobby/Bar How dated 02.0 Divisional ainst the applicant without decla d or partially proved. e facts and circumstances of th d to quash and set aside the no. Major/SEE/11/2020 0 issued against the applicant i se. r relief/reliefs for which the app the sake of brevity, the facts d and discussed hereunder: e applicant was appointed as A to Employment Notice No.01 ent Board, Muzaffarpur. After a appeared in the written exami e was declared successful. Psycho Test and was subseq n on 07.01.2015, where his docu nsequently, the applicant was is as Assistant Loco Pilot on 15. he pay band of Rs.5200–20200 l completion of the prescribed tr to serve the Railways. Subsequ enior Assistant Loco Pilot in th as Senior Assistant Loco rauni in Sonepur Division, Sonep wever, the applicant received a 09.2020 issued by the Discipli l Electrical Engineer/TRO, East C

laring the charges to be proved, he case this Hon'ble Court may e major penalty charge-sheet Vi/OP/Vig/RRB/MFP/ dated in the facts and circumstances plicant is entitled” of the present OA are being Assistant Loco Pilot (Electric) /2014 issued by the Railway applying for the said post, the ination held on 15.06.2014 in Thereafter, he qualified the quently called for document uments were found genuine. ssued an appointment letter and 06.2015 in Sonpur Division of with Grade Pay Rs.1900. After raining, he joined his duties and uently, he was promoted to the he year 2017. Lastly, he was Pilot working under Crew pur. a Major Penalty Charge Sheet inary Authority i.e. the Senior Central Railway, Sonepur along t d f r

Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench with the documents purportedl The proceeding Officer on enquiry fo Defence C in which h which wa residential appear bef the fact th messenger residential received th in the enq against him on 08.02.2 enquiry. I specified accepts th Thereafter the basis o order date

Articles of Charges, imputatio s alleging impersonation in ly based on a handwriting expert ereafter Inquiry Officer was g was initiated. The applicant n 16.10.2020 and 20.10.2020 in or a week due to his wife's il Counsellor (DC) participated in he asked for certain documents to as made available to him thro l address on 24.12.2020. After th fore the Inquiry Officer to partic hat his wife as well as he himself r (Amit Kumar, OS/TRO/SEE) n l address of CO on 29.01.2021 he letter on the same date in wh quiry on 01.02.2021 failing whic m . A letter dated 01.02.2021 wa 2021 in which the applicant p O observed that the Charged O duration which itself creates d he charge framed on him an r, the Inquiry Officer submitted h of the aforesaid enquiry report t ed 19.05.2021 passed the order on of Misconduct and list of the recruitment examination, t and CFSL report. appointed and the enquiry t appeared before the Inquiry which he pleaded to delay the llness. The CO along with his the next enquiry on 28.10.2020 o be provided to defend his case ough a letter addressed to his hat, the charged official did not cipate in the enquiry because of f was seriously ill. Thereafter, a nominated by IO was sent at the where he was present and he hich he was asked to participate ch ex parte action can be taken as sent by the applicant to the IO promised to participate in the Officer did not turn up within doubt that the charged official nd he has nothing to defend. his report on 10.03.2021; and on the Disciplinary Authority vide r of removal of applicant from f f

Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench railway se Railway S It h documents applying u copies of 04.04.2024 Major Pen 10.03.202 further co disciplinar from serv Applicatio

3. Per statement responden (A) Firs to be con Railway S an illegal any right impersona proved by Examiner ervice under Rule 6 (i) Vii), ervant (Discipline& Appeal) Ru has been contended in the pleadin s during travel, he could not pur under the Right to Information A f the charge-sheet, inquiry rep 4 whereby he was supplied copi nalty Charge sheet dated 02. 1 and the punishment order d ontended that without accepting ry authority passed the impugned ice, which has led the applica on seeking appropriate relief. contra, the counsel for resp (hereinafter referred to as nts for dismissing this OA rests o st of all, the respondent insist th nclusively to be one of the 125 Service by adopting unfair mean appointment and subsequent ille upon the applicant to conti ation while taking the examina y the reports of handwriting of Questioned Documents) and f

(viii) & (ix)of part III of the ules, 1968. ngs that owing to the loss of his rsue an appeal or revision. Upon Act on 19.02.2024, he received port and punishment order on ies of only three documents viz 09.2020, Inquiry report dated dated 19.05.2021. It has been g the applicant’s defence, the d order dismissing the applicant ant to file the present Original ondents has filed the written W.S.) The argument of the on the following grounds: hat the applicant has been found 5 candidates who entered into ns of impersonation. Therefore, egal promotion does not confer inue in the job. This act of ation for recruitment has been expert of CFSL (Government finger print examiner. d d r f Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench (B) The has been inquiry by Officer) di appearanc given due been cond (C) The applicant remedy o Authority. (D) Add competenc come and not justifi Departmen to cross ex not been q relied upon

4. Cou reiterated difficulty ongoing t considered contained e respondents have argued that complied with because the Inq y following the due procedure. id not participate in the process o es the matter had to be conduct notice so there is nothing wro ducted. e respondents have also raised approached this Tribunal witho f appeal and revision against

ditionally, they have reiterated th ce and veracity of the expert rep be examined during the course ed. The CFSL and Handwritin nts and the experts need not be c xamination. Their reports are co quoted as witnesses in the depart n documents. unsel for applicant has filed rejoi the earlier submission. Additio for participating in the enquiry reatment of kidney failure of d by the Inquiry Officer. The in Annexure A/1 to the OA itse the principle of natural justice quiry Officer has conducted the Since, the applicant (Charged of inquiry barring making a few ted ex parte. The applicant was ong in the way the Inquiry has d a procedural point that the out exhausting the departmental the order of the Disciplinary hat the question of doubting the port by asking for the expert to e of departmental proceeding is ng experts are the Government called for examination or subject onclusive and they have rightly tmental proceeding to prove the inder to the OA in which he has onally, he has argued that the proceeding was on account of his wife which has not been major penalty charge sheet as elf is not in consonance with the y f Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench provisions not contain finding an of docume adopted an authorities applicant absence of proof of th

5. We material a Thereafter

(i) So f is fit to be Tribunal A “beyond o procedure to proceed

(ii) If w in his re imputation the recruit of handwr Document s of the Railway Servants (D&A n any list of witnesses and the I nd conclusion merely on the basis ents relied upon. It has been furt ny unfair means or malpractice

s. The author of the opinion has has been provided opportunity f examination of author, a docu he charges levelled on the basis o have heard the counsels for available on record, and consid r, we have come to the following far as the procedural points of th e rejected at the very outset. Se Act does confer the power on ordinary” the OA could be h under the Act. Since, the bench d with these OAs we are now at t we look at the charge memo again emoval from service along w n of Misconduct and list of docum tment examination, then we find riting expert of CFSL(Governm ts) and the report of a Finger Pri

A) Rules, 1968 as the same does nquiry Officer has arrived at its s of opinion contained in the list ther stated that applicant has not e as alleged by the respondent s neither been examined nor the y to cross-examine him and in ument itself is not a conclusive of the document. both the parties, perused the dered the matter in its entirety. g conclusion: he respondents are concerned, it ection 20 of the Administrative the tribunal that in a situation heard after following the due h had earlier allowed the parties this stage of final hearing. nst the applicant that culminated with the Articles of Charges, ments alleging impersonation in d that it is relying on the reports ment Examiner of Questioned int Expert marked as Annexure- d d Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench III of the expert and Extract of "The perso and marke similarly s The person and mark signature s

“After ex impression O.A.) avai of the said time of ver

(iii) The Laboratory handwritin be by the applicant h been foun found to b created do the experts counsels f charge memo.The relevant part d CFSL report is being reproduce f the Report of handwriting ex Report of CFSL on who wrote the blue enclosed ed S1 to S3 also wrote the red e stamped and marked Q2. n who wrote the blue enclosed w ked S1 to S3 did not write th similarly stamped and marked Q Report of Finger print Expe amination and verification, it n of following candidates (includ ilable on OMR Sheets are not id d candidate as available on dec rification of documents in RRB/M

SIGNED

(Md. Rahamatull

Finger Print Examiner e so-called adverse report of y/General Examiner of Questio ng of the applicant is not so conc e respondents. Some of the spe have been found to be matching nd on the answer paper book an be matching so it cannot be said oubts and the applicant deserves a s for proving this not-so-conclus for respondents, that the exper t of the opinion of handwriting ed as under:- xpert marked as “OPINION” L writings and signature stamped enclosed writings and signature writings and signatures stamped he red enclosed writings and Q1". ert t has been found that thumb ding the applicant of the instant dentical with thumb impression claration forms submitted at the MFP. lah) ECR/Danapur” the Central Forensic Science oned Documents with regard to clusive as it is being made out to ecimens of handwriting of the g with the handwriting that has nd some of them have not been d to be conclusive. Thus, it has an opportunity to cross examine sive report.The argument of the rt report is a relevant fact and d d d t Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench experts ne are recogn that now c 2023, is n experts. T experts to view that he is prep being gran memo with documents It ha on the ans thumb imp called Exp (ECR Dan to by the masquerad hand have yet to be p to demons applicant course of d to test the eed not be called for examination nised as such under section 45 o corresponds to section 39(1) of not acceptable in view of this n The statement of the respondent depose is completely misplaced the charge of impersonation lev pared to contest this “alleged fa nted to him from the beginning hout including the concerned wi s. as also been alleged that the thu swer paper book has been foun pression that has been taken no pert report has been signed by on napur) Mohd. Rahmatullah, who counsel for applicant as a ret ding as a fingerprint examiner. e treated him as a fingerprint ex proved because nothing has bee strate that he is a certified Fin deserves a right to examine thi departmental proceedings and su veracity of the report and exam n and cross-examination as they of previous Indian Evidence Act f Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, not-so-conclusive report of the s about the non-requirement of d as the applicant is firm in his velled against him is wrong and act” but for lack of opportunity g by foisting a defective charge itnesses to prove the relied upon umb impression of the applicant nd to be not matching with his ow after employment. This so- ne retired officer of the Railway o has been sarcastically referred tired travelling ticket examiner The respondents on the other xaminer. But his credentials are en produced before this tribunal ngerprint examiner. Hence, the is fingerprint expert during the ubject him to cross examination mine the credential of this expert. t f r r Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench More so, removal fr Ann witnesses Jitendra S

(iv) Sim impersona These dism aside by th other conn basis of o applicants

(v) In o we will lik the Hon’b selection p they were the next hi certain sou and appo competitiv had taken obtain cert draw tenta the compe when these contested reports h rom service of the applicants. nexure-IV with the charge m by which articles of charge fra Singh are proposed to be subst milar OAs in a batch case with ation resulted in dismissal of th missal orders of the Tribunal a he Hon’ble High Court of Patn nected CWJCs on 05.03.2025. N of the respondents who are op has crumbled. order to bring clarity and demons ke to advert briefly to the afores ble High Court of Patna. Here th procedure for the post of Assist selected and appointed. The ap igher cadre. When things stood urce of information to the exten ointed candidates were involv ve examination for the said post. certain exercise of forwarding th tain reports which were adverse ative inference that they were in etitive examination. Having reg have become the basis for the memo that contains the list of amed against the applicant Sri tantiated records NIL. respect to the same charges of he OAs by the Tribunal earlier. as on date has already been set a in CWJC No. 7341/2024 and Now it is obvious that the very posing the relief claim by the strate the similarity of the issue, said cases that were decided by he applicants were subjected to tant Loco Pilot (Diesel), where pplicants were also promoted to thus, official respondents had a nt that large number of selected ved in impersonation in the Thereafter, official respondents he answer paper book to lab and e to the applicant and others, to nvolved in the impersonation in gard to the fact that applicants f f t d y d Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench were appo responden (hereinafte applicant f before this No. 214/2 of the app challenged After prop has comm For the pu contain ch of witness to the exte the author Officer, th be examin Supreme C cross exam mandatory with the C Thi commence

(vi) Thi Responden ointed and had been promoted to nts invoked Railway servants (Di er referred to as Rules,1968) from Government Service. This s bench of the Central Adminis

022. The CAT proceeded to aff plicants on 21.02.2024. The ap d this order of CAT before the per hearing it was decided by the mitted error in not noticing that th urpose of imposition of major p harge memo, statement of imput ses. There is non-compliance to ent that there is no list of witness r of the documents which we here is violation of the principle t ned and cross examined. Citing Court, the Hon’ble High Court d mination of witnesses of auth y and on this count the petitioner CAT orders. Accordingly, these o is matter was remanded to e a fresh inquiry strictly adhering is order of the Hon’ble High nts (Railways) in Hon’ble Sup o the next higher Cadre, official iscipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and proceeded to remove the s removal order was challenged strative Tribunal (CAT) in OA firm the decision of the removal plicants of the concerned OAs Hon’ble High Court of Patna. e Hon’ble High Court that CAT here is violation of Rules, 1968. penalty show cause notice must ation, list of documents and list o the aforementioned provisions ses. In the absence of examining ere relied on by the Inquiring that author of the document is to g various judgments of Hon’ble decided that the examination and hor of certain documents are rs made out the case to interfere orders of CAT were set aside. the disciplinary authority to g to the Rules, 1968. h Court was assailed by the preme Court of India in SLP

Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench (Civil) D observatio reproduced “4. Obvio without ta purpose of

5. The H discretion The optio inquiry, is

6. We fi observatio

7. Pending In responden CAT in O petitioners present OA Now discussed Court of P Hen witnesses have been should be order to

Diary No. 34374/2025 where ons on 01.08.2025. The rel d below: ously the petitioners cannot be aking back the respondents i f conducting the same in accord High Court has been careful i of the petitioners as to how the on of placing the respondent s always open to the petitioners. ind no reason to interfere; ons, the special leave petitions ar g applications if any shall stand this order of the Hon’ble S nts are the dismissed employees o OA No. 050/00214 of 2022 s are the respondents (Railway A under adjudication. w, it is obvious that the issues i here are exactly similar to what Patna and ultimately by Hon’ble nce, the charge memo needs to quoted as the prosecution witnes n relied upon in these departmen afforded an opportunity to cro satisfy the principle of natur

SLPs were dismissed with levant paragraphs are being allowed to conduct an inquiry in service but for the limited dance with law. in recording that it is at the ey would treat the respondents. ts under suspension pending however with the aforesaid re dismissed. d disposed of.” Supreme Court of India, the of the concerned OAs before the 2 and connected matters. The

y) of these OAs as well as the n the instant OA that are being t was decided by Hon’ble High Supreme Court of India. o be revised with these expert sses to prove the documents that ntal proceedings. The applicant oss-examine these witnesses in ral justice. There is need for

d g d t Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench appointme during suc

6. In v deserves to is full of justice. Th removal fr aside to m Acc consonanc cited abov A. The Vi/OP/Vig inquiry rep Vi/OP/Vig order of t applicant Vi/Operati quashed an B. Con by the res of receipt C. The benefits du service wi clarified th these are n ent of the presenting officer as w ch conduct of departmental proce view of the analysis and disc o be allowed with observation th defects leading to gross violati his has resulted in passing an from service in respect of the a meet the ends of justice. cordingly, the OA is allowed ce with the order passed by the H ve. e major penalty charge-sheet b g/RRB/MFP/ dated 02.09.2020 i port submitted by the Inquiry O g/RRB/ MFP/Major/SEE/11/202 the disciplinary authority with from service vide ion/Vig./RRB/MFP/Major/Son/1 nd set aside. nsequently, the applicant will hav spondents/competent authority w of this order. e question of back wages an uring this period of removal fro ill be decided by the respondent hat the Tribunal has not express not the specific reliefs that have b well to assist the inquiry officer eedings. cussion made above, this OA hat this departmental proceeding ion of the principles of natural n order by the respondents of applicant which needs to be set d in the following terms in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India earing no. Major/SEE/11/2020 issued against the applicant, the Officer vide Report bearing no. 20 dated 10.03.2021 and the regard to the removal of the order bearing no. 11/2020 dated 19.05.2021 are ve to be reinstated in the service within one month from the date nd other consequential service om service to re-instatement in ts as per the rules. This is being sed any opinion on this issue as been claimed in the instant O.A. r f a Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA

Patna Bench Therefore, the rules. D. The proceeding adhering t by this Tri with appr document adhering proceeding order. The proceeding proceeding liberty to a E. The pendency per rules a proceeding F. The G. No o

(Kumar R Memb mks

, all these points are to be consid e respondents are at liberty g from the defective stage of o the Rules, 1968 and also by fo ibunal as per Para 5 above that ropriate list of relevant prose

t. Such departmental proceeding to the Rules, 1968 and they gs preferably within a period of e applicant is also directed to

g. In case there is any pro gs within the prescribed time li approach the Tribunal for extens e option of placing the applican of inquiry is also open to the r and procedural requirement of g. e pending MA is also disposed of order as to cost. Rajesh Chandra) (Justice ber (A)

dered by the respondents as per to conduct the departmental f framing of charge memo by following the observations made are revising the charge memo cution witnesses to prove the gs should be conducted strictly should complete the inquiry six months from the date of this co-operate in the departmental oblem in conclusion of such imit, the respondents will be at sion of time. nt under suspension during the respondents who will decide as conducting a fair departmental f. e Narendra Kumar Johari) Member(J)

y t Digitally signed by MANORAN JAN KUMAR SINHA MANORA NJAN KUMAR SINHA