By the Court.—Heard Sri K.C. Sinha, Advocate, for petitioners; and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 has been filed by Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and two others being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as “OA”) No. 330/00257 of 2014 whereby Tribunal has allowed OA filed by applicant-respondent, Devendra Kumar Chaudhary, and set aside order dated 16.7.2010 whereby penalty of ‘Removal’ was imposed upon applicant-respondent and orders dated 8.1.2013 and 16.12.2013 passed by appellate and revisional authorities rejecting appeal and revision of applicant-respondent.

3. Facts in brief, giving rise to present dispute, are as under.

4. Recruitment test to the post of Income Tax Inspector (hereinafter referred to as “IT Inspector”) was conducted by Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “SSC”) holding “Inspector Grade Examination-1994”. The recruitment process included written examination and interview. Applicant-respondent applied for the post of IT Inspector. SSC allotted him Roll No. 2413814. Written examination consisting of objective type question paper was held on 27.11.1994. Applicant-respondent was declared successful in written examination and thereafter called for interview on 9.10.1995. Applicant-respondent was ultimately selected and recommended for appointment to the post of I.T. Inspector. Appointing Authority issued letter of appointment to Applicant-respondent appointing him on the the post of I.T. Inspector. Applicant-respondent joined the post of I.T. Inspector on 27.16.1996 under Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “CIT”).

5. It appears that SSC received complaint that Applicant-respondent had passed written examination by impersonation, i.e. making someone else to appear in written examination and thus guilty of getting Government job by using unfair means. Matter was examined at Head Quarter of SSC at New Delhi and on its request Income Tax Officer, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “ITO, All”) issued a letter dated 9.2.1999 directing Applicant-respondent to appear before Secretary, SSC at New Delhi. Applicant-respondent appeared before Secretary, SSC at New Delhi and tendered specimen hand writing and signatures in Hindi and English, both, to the said authority. The documents consisting of OMR answer-sheet, admit card and specimen handwriting and signatures provided by Applicant-respondent were forwarded to Sri T. Joshi, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Police Research and Development Bureau, Shimla under Ministry of Home Affairs, (hereinafter referred to as “Forensic Expert”) for his opinion. Forensic Expert submitted report dated 18.3.1999 as under:

“The document of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined.

2. The person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S12, A1 to A5 did not write the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 and Q2/1.

3. The person who wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S12, A1 to A5 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2.”

6. Forensic Expert’s report dated 18.3.1999 was forwarded by Government Examiner vide letter dated 15.4.1999 to Head Quarter of SSC. Thereafter SCC issued a letter dated 20.5.1999 informing CIT that Applicant-respondent has entered Government job by fraudulent means, therefore, his services should be terminated after following due procedure including issue of show-cause notice to him. SSC vide letter dated 28.5.1999 also cancelled candidature of Applicant-respondent for examination held on 27.11.1994 and withdrew his nomination from dossier of examination of recruitment of I.T. Insp