C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. 17 years after his appointment, the respondent, a low paid conductor with the petitioner, was – at the instance of an apparently disgruntled co-worker - removed from service, on the ground that the institution from which he had obtained his matriculation was not an institution whose certificates were recognized for employment with the Central Government. Allegations of “cheating”, “fraud” and “suppression” were heaped on the respondent, despite the fact that his certificate had – admittedly – been seen, by the petitioner, not only at the time of his original appointment, but, as the respondent would aver (which is not rebutted) even later at the stage of his confirmation and periodically while inspecting his service book, and despite the fact that the petitioner was itself unsure of the issue, for which it had to secure the opinion of the Department of Personnel & Training (“DOPT”). The matter travelled, inexorably, to the learned Industrial Tribunal, which declared the removal, of the respondent, from service, to be illegal, and directed his reinstatement with back wages, by which time four years had passed since his removal. The petitioner moved thi