Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4305

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Lala Thakur – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 050/00214/2022|O.A. No. 050/00215/2022|O.A. No. 050/00216/2022|O.A. No. 050/00217/2022|O.A. No. 050/00218/2022|O.A. No. 050/00219/2022|O.A. No. 050/00220/2022|O.A. No. 050/00221/2022|O.A. No. 050/00222/2022|O.A. No. 050/00223/2022|O.A. No. 050/00224/2022|O.A. No. 050/00225/2022|O.A. No. 050/00226/2022|O.A. No. 050/00320/2022|O.A. No. 050/00323/2022|O.A. No. 050/00571/2022|O.A. No. 050/00754/2022|O.A. No. 050/00755/2022|O.A. No. 050/00772/2022|O.A. No. 050/00773/2022|O.A. No. 050/00821/2022|O.A. No. 050/00861/2022|O.A. No. 050/00862/2022|O.A. No. 050/00875/2022|O.A. No. 050/00021/2023|O.A. No. 050/00050/2023|O.A. No. 050/00051/2023|O.A. No. 050/00052/2023|O.A. No. 050/00053/2023|O.A. No. 050/00065/2023|O.A. No. 050/00066/2023|O.A. No. 050/00067/2023|O.A. No. 050/00160/2023|O.A. No. 050/01003/2019|O.A. No. 050/01006/2019|O.A. No. 050/01012/2019|O.A. No. 050/00111/2020|O.A. No. 050/00568/2022|O.A. No. 050/00569/2022|O.A. No. 050/00570/2022|O.A. No. 050/00572/2022|O.A. No. 050/00573/2022|O.A. No. 050/00574/2022|O.A. No. 050/00575/2022|O.A. No. 050/00576/2022|O.A. No. 050/00577/2022|O.A. No. 050/00578/2022|O.A. No. 050/00579/2022|O.A. No. 050/00580/2022|O.A. No. 050/00611/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.P. Dixit
For the Respondents: Shri H.P. Singh, Smt. P.R. Lakshmi, H.R. Singh, R.R. Singh, A.K. Singh, Deepak Kr., Bindhyachal Rai, T.N. Thakur, Bhuneshwar Pandey, G.K. Agrawal

In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, allowing reliance on expert evidence without requiring their cross-examination, particularly in cases of misconduct involving fraud.

Headnote:(A) Railway Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9(10) - Impersonation in recruitment - Major penalty chargesheet issued based on forensic evidence of identity mismatch between handwriting and thumbprints - Applicants failed to prove innocence or produce evidence to contradict charges - Disciplinary Authority upheld removal from service, confirmed by Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority. (Paras 7-9, 19-23, 39-41)

(B) Procedural Compliance - Requirement of producing witness list in chargesheet not mandatory under Rule 9(10) - Non-examination of forensic experts does not render the evidence inadmissible as per principles of departmental inquiries based on preponderance of probabilities. (Paras 27-30, 51-56)

(C) Legal Principles - Importance of maintaining discipline in public service outweighs technicalities in procedural compliance, particularly in cases of misconduct involving fraud. (Paras 66-69)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge of impersonation was substantiated by expert testimony and that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice.

Issues: The court addressed whether the failure to cross-examine forensic experts constituted a violation of natural justice and whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the penalties imposed on the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and a failure to provide a list of witnesses does not invalidate the proceedings.

Result: All original applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction and overview of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of allegations and charges against applicants. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments and legal contentions by the applicants. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's observations on procedural compliance. (Para 20 , 22)
5. forensic evidence and its implications. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
6. conclusion and dismissal of applications. (Para 72 , 73 , 74)

ORDER

Per Ajay Pratap Singh, Member [Judicial]:

1. All the original applications raise similar question of law and are based on almost identical facts. It shall be sufficient to note in details the facts of lead case of OA No. 050/00214/2022, Lala Thakur Versus Union of India & Ors. for appreciating the issues raised in this batch of original applications. Shri M.P. Dixit learned counsel appearing for applicants in all these OAs. Shri H.P. Singh, Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel assisted by Learned Additional Standing Counsels for respondents in all these cases.

2. These Original applications have been filed by the applicants to set- aside final order of removal from service passed by revisionary authority upheld punishment imposed by disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority. So also to set-aside order of removal from service passed by disciplinary authority and upheld by order of appellate authority, to declare memorandum of charge-SF-5 major penalty chargesheet and inquiry report as void-ab-initio and So also seeking further direction to respondents to reinstate applicants with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary from date of order of removal from service till date of reinstatement with statutory interest along with cost of the OAs.

3. All the above five original applications, OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022 and 218/2022 were heard together on 21.12.2023 and reserved for orders on 21.12.2023 as the cause of action, background facts, applicants prayer in each case were similar.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the parties informed that in all other similar forty five original applications involving also similar question of law and are also based on almost identical facts, cause of action, applicants prayer in all these batch of OAs as in five OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022 and 218/2022 already heard together and reserved for orders on 21.12.2023.

5. These forty five original applications batch of cases were also heard on 31.01.2024 simultaneously and on 31.01.2024 reserved for orders. The learned counsel for parties submitted that all the forty five OAs as well as five OAs based on similar question of law and also based on same cause of action, background facts. The learned counsel for parties also submitted that only difference that OA NO. 214/2022, 215/2022, 216/2022, 217/2022, 218/2022, 219/2022, 220/2022, 221/2022, 222/2022, 223/2022, 224/2022, 225/2022, 226/2022, 320/2022, 323/2022, 571/2022, 754/2022, 755/2022, 772/2022, 773/2022 821/2022, 861/2022, 862/2022, 875/2022, 21/2023, 50/2023, 51/2023, 52/2023, 53/2023, 65/2023, 67/2023 and OA NO. 160/2023 have been filed challenging order passed by revisionary authority upholding the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect without any benefits, imposed by disciplinary authority and order of Appellate Authority. Whereas Original application No. 1003/2019, 1006/2019, 1012/2019, 111/2020, 568/2022, 569/2022, 570/2022, 572/2022, 573/2022, 574/2022, 575/2022, 576/2022, 577/2022, 578/2022, 579/2022, 580/2022, 611/2022, and 66/2023 are in second round of litigation. In the first round this Tribunal quashed orders passed by appellate as well as revisionary authorities of removal from service and directed to pass orders afresh. Now these 45 O.As. have been filed challenging order passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of disciplinary authority of removal from service with immediate effect.

6. This batch of original applications filed under section 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document