The court upheld the disciplinary action taken against the applicant for impersonation, emphasizing limited judicial review on factual findings.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure A-I) dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure A-II) and dated 3.5.2010 (Annexure A-III).

(ii) to issue another writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to immediately reinstate the applicant back in service with full back wages along with interest accrued till date and pendentilite for which a time bound order is dervently prayed;

(iii) To issue any other suitable order in favour of the humble applicant as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstanes of the case;

(iv) To award heavy cost in favour of the humble applicant”.

2. Brief Facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer in the year 1976 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Mason Mistry. A dispute arose when the applicant’s real brother lodged a complaint alleging that Casual Labour Card No. 291115, held by the applicant, actually belonged to him. The complainant claims that he has affixed his own thumb impression in casual labour card. The applicant has contended that this complaint was false and motivated by a family dispute. Further, another complaint was submitted by one Ram Prasad, alleging that the applicant impersonating himself has obtained employment and was, in fact, one Bhagwan Das. However, the applicant submitted a letter dated 25.09.2010, purportedly written by Ram Prasad, stating that he had never made such an allegation against the applicant. The complainant had also enclosed some tuition fee receipts in the name of Bhagwan Das, which the applicant claims were fabricated. The applicant’s recorded date of birth is 01.02.1957. Based on the above complaints, a major penalty charge sheet was issued against the applicant, ultimately resulting in his removal from service. The applicant’s appeal against the penalty was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Revision petition was also filed against the appellate order. When the same was dismissed, the applicant filed Original Application No. 1324 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the Revisionary Authority to decide the revision afresh. In compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 09.09.2010, the Revisionary Authority passed an order upholding the decisions of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that a complaint dated 03.04.2008 was submitted by Shri Ram Prasad, an ex- member of the CISF. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant had worked for approximately 20–25 days with the IOW in the year 1976 and was subsequently appointed in the CISF on 07.04.1977. It was further alleged that his thumb impression was taken in the main register of the IOW during the said period. According to the complainant, after his joining CISF, his elder brother, namely Shri Bhagwan Das, son of Shri Parvat Ram, joined the Railways by impersonating himself as Ram Prasad, son of Parvat Ram, and was eventually regularized in service under this false identity. To substantiate his claims, the complainant enclosed a copy of the voters' list along with other documents. Based on the complaint, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The Enqui