HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 31st October, 2013 in O.A. No. 482 of 2008, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner against an order of removal from service remained unsuccessful.

2. The petitioner joined as Assistant Station Master, Garpura on 04.02.2002. He was served with a major penalty charge memo dated 21st January, 2004 that on 18th of July, 1999 at Daya Nand Kanya Inter College, Gorakhpur Centre another person appeared in the written examination in his place and the petitioner obtained the appointment order by a false personation. The stand of the petitioner was that he personally appeared in the written examination but he has been framed since he is a member of Scheduled Caste. He also challenged the manner of conduct of disciplinary proceedings and that the relevant documents were not supplied to him and the Inquiry Officer was acting prejudicially and that even though the Invigilator has deposed in his favour and that Mr. P. Venugopal, who has submitted the Expert Report, has not been examined, still his report was accepted and the order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed.

3. In reply, the stand of the employer was that on receipt of complaint, the matter was enquired and the petitioner was found to have resorted to malpractices by resorting to impersonation. The report of Handwriting Expert after the examination of the answer sheets it could be known that the handwriting found in the answer-sheet did not tally with his admitted handwriting. It was a clear case of impersonation and thus, disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The very entry of the petitioner in the Railway service was based on forgery, cheating and false representation. It was also pleaded that ample opportunities were given to inspect the original documents and all relevant documents were also supplied. The invigilator could not identify the petitioner during inquiry after six years of the examination which put a question mark on her credibility, vision and memory. The order of removal was based on a scientific report of Government handwriting examiner of the questioned documents and there is hardly any material to differ with the views of the Handwriting Expert.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 25th of July, 2008, still aggrieved; the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna which has been dismissed by an order impugned in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following four arguments:-

(i) That Sri P. Venugopal Rao, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (hereinafter referred to as GEQD) has not been produced for the purpose of cross examination by the petitioner. Therefore, such report cannot be made basis of returning a finding against the petitioner. In this connection, reliance is placed on the case of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen and Others, (1971) 2 SCC 617, State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh and Another, (1992) 3 SCC 700, Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 and D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259.

(ii) That though in the report of the Inquiry Officer discussion was that the charge of impersonation does not stand proved still the Inquiry Officer has concluded as charge proved, which is contradictory to the discussion. Therefore, such Inquiry Report cannot be made basis of disciplinary action against the petitioner.

(iii) That personal hearing was not granted by the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal. In this connection, reference was made to the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 103.

(iv) That the petitioner was approved for appointment to the post of Assistant Station Master by