Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11567
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Himanshu Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Chairman Railway Board, Ministry of Railways – Respondent
Original Application No.278 of 2020
For the Appellant: Shri Siddharth Khare
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta
Debarment for alleged impersonation requires robust evidence; mere expert opinion is insufficient without corroboration.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Impersonation in examinations - Termination of candidature - The applicant was debarred from future exams due to alleged impersonation but was later shown to have been selected for another position prior to debarment. The court ruled that the debarring order was not enforceable against the applicant's appointment on the other post, following precedent set in recent relevant case law. (Paras 10-14).
(B) Employment Law - Principles of natural justice - The court emphasized the need for substantiating allegations against candidates with adequate evidence before imposing severe penalties such as debarment for life. (Paras 21-36).
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged a debarment order based on alleged impersonation during a recruitment examination events while having already received a selection for a different post prior to this order.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the earlier debarment was inapplicable to the applicant's valid appointment as Chemical & Metrological Assistant, ordering reinstatement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the debarment order was justifiable considering the applicant’s legitimate selection and prior appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that evidence for impersonation must be robust, as mere expert opinions are insubstantial without corroborating evidence.
Result: Original Application allowed and debarment set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. aberrant debarring process. (Para 3) |
| 2. expert opinion scrutiny. (Para 4) |
| 3. prior appointment validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. application allows reinstatement. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
(i) By means a suitable order or direction quashing the order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the Chairman/Railways Recruitment Board –respondent-3
(ii) By means of a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents authorities to forthwith grant appointment to the applicant on the post of Chemical & Metrological Assistant pursuance to Notification dated 29.12.2018 within a period to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
3. The brief facts as stated by the applicant in the Original Application is that the respondents invited application from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Technician (Signal & Telecom)/J.E/SDMA vide advertisement No.01/2018. Pursuant thereto, the applicant being eligible applied for the post of Technician (Signal & Telecom) under Other Backward Classes (non creamy layer ) (hereinafter referred as OBC) and appeared for the first stage and second stage computer based test (CBT)and was declared successful in both the CBT exams. Thereafter, applicant was called for document verifications and medical examination. Accordingly, the applicant appeared before the respondents with all the relevant documents on 12.09.2019, but he was not permitted to undergo the same after taking an objection with regard to mismatch of hand writing of the applicant in second stage of CBT.
3.1 Aggrieved by the same, he earlier approached this Tribunal, by way of Original Application No.1023/2019, which is still pending. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board on 06.01.2020 with a direction to reply on the allegation of impersonation. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted his detailed reply on 23.01.2020 & 27.01.2020, but the respondents vide order dated 18.05.2020, debarred the applicant from all Railways Recruitment Board of Railways Recruitment Cell Examination for appointment in Indian Railways for life time.
3.2 In the meanwhile, the respondent- Railway issued a Notification dated 29.12.2018 for the post of Chemical & Metrological Assistant (CMA). In pursuance thereof, the applicant applied and appeared in the recruitment process and also selected for the said post of CMA. Ultimately, an appointment order/letter was also issued in favour of the applicant on 02.03.2020 before the debarment of order in another recruitment process. Thereafter, an email was issued to the applicant on 17.03.2020 to report for joining on 30/31.03.2020 at Baroda House, New Delhi, but due to lockdown of COVID -19 Pandemic, the joining of the applicant stood deferred.
3.3 Thereafter, a fresh email was issued on 08.06.2020, directing the applicant to submit his joining along with relevant documents on 08.07.2020, followed by a new email dated 29.06.2020, which contained a direction to the applicant to report to CWM, Northern Railway, CB-LKO for the purposes of joining, training as CMA. Apart from the aforesaid, the applicant was also required to furnish attestation form and a copy of which was also sent through mail, wherein the applicant had to answer whether he has been debarred from any examination or not and if the applicant fill the attestation form with negative then he would be making a lie in view of the fact that in pursuance to the another recruitment notice, he was debarred for life though the same was issued after issuance of appointment letter. Hence, this Original Application has been filed, challenging the order dated 18.05.2020.
4. On the other hand, counter repl
