The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of alleged impersonation during the selection process, a full-fledged departmental enquiry may not be necessary, and the expert's report may be admissible without the need for the expert to be examined or for the petitioner to be granted an opportunity to cross-examine.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Learned Standing Counsel has provided to the Court a copy of written instructions dated 23.02.2023, which is taken on record.

3. The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Constable in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the month of January, 2018. The petitioner was allotted a roll number and he participated in the written examination where he was declared successful under the O.B.C. category. The petitioner was further subjected to document verification and physical efficiency test, which was followed by a medical examination and in each stage, the petitioner was successful and sent for training at Fatehpur and then to Mainpuri. Later the petitioner was posted at P.S. Chandpur, District Fatehpur and has been working since then.

4. In pursuance of the complaint filed raising allegations in respect of the selection so made, it was alleged that the petitioner had impersonated and he had not appeared in the examination. An F.I.R. was lodged on 08.06.2021. The petitioner thereupon was called by Recruitment Board where his photographs and biometrics were taken. The petitioner thereafter was enlarged on bail on 01.10.2021. The petitioner on the basis of the bail order sought his joining, which was refused and on 30.07.2021, an order was passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, against the cancellation order dated 30.07.2021 and order dated 07.12.2021 whereby the petitioner was delisted in pursuance of the cancellation order the petitioner preferred a Writ-A No.19036 of 2021 (Ankit Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was allowed by means of an order dated 11.04.2022 remitting the matter for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including providing the evidence which was proposed to be used against the petitioner.

5. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 11.04.2022, a show-cause notice dated 02.08.2022 was issued to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the finger prints and photographs expert's report indicating that at the time when the petitioner appeared for the examination his biometrics did not match and therefore, it confirmed that the petitioner had resorted to impersonation. The petitioner furnished his reply on 07.09.2022. Alongwith his reply, the petitioner also furnished a report obtained from a private forensic investigating firm based on the same documents, which was enclosed with the show-cause notice and sent to the petitioner. The private report relied upon by the petitioner indicated that the biometric of the petitioner did not verify with the report submitted by the T.C.S., which was relied upon by the respondent authorities. Once again, the order dated 07.10.2022 was passed affirming the conclusion that the petitioner had resorted to impersonation and his representation was rejected, which is now under challenge before this Court in the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the authorities have committed grave error in failing to hold a proper enquiry against the petitioner and without doing so, the services of the petitioner could not be dispensed with. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is based on the report submitted by the experts, however, the experts who had given its report was neither examined nor the petitioner was granted any opportunity to cross-examine such expert and in absence of the aforesaid, the petitioner has been substantially prejudiced and as such, there is the grave violation of principles of natural justice, accordingly, the order impugned suffers from vice of arbitrariness and is nothing but a colourable exercise of power by the authorities, hence, it is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the de