Dismissal orders quashed for violating natural justice; mandatory cross-examination of expert witnesses on inconclusive reports required for fair inquiry.

ORDER

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member Due to parity in the nature of grievance and facts pleaded, OA/050/00485/20238, OA/050/493/2023 and OA/050/194/2025 listed above are being heard out analogously, upon due notice, to be disposed of by this common order, with consent of all the sides. Incidentally, the learned counsel for applicants is one and the same. So far as the counsels for respondents are concerned, they are different but have argued along the same lines often adopting the arguments of other counsels for respondents.

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of OA/050/00485/2023 (Applicant: Satish Kumar) is being delineated and discussed hereunder : The applicant was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot (Electric) pursuant to Employment Notice No.01/2014 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur. After applying for the said post, the applicant appeared in the written examination held on 15.06.2014 and was declared successful. He thereafter qualified the Aptitude/Psycho Test and was subsequently called for document verification, where his documents were found genuine.

Consequently, the applicant was issued an appointment letter on 09.07.2015 and was posted at Samastipur Division in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1900. After successful completion of the prescribed training, he joined his duties and continued to serve the Railways. After rendering more than four years of service, the applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Loco Pilot in the year 2018 with Grade Pay Rs.2400. The applicant then came to Danapur Division after accepting reversion to the post of ALP in bottom seniority.

However, after about five years from the date of his appointment, the applicant received a show cause notice dated 22.06.2020 issued by the respondents alleging impersonation in the recruitment examination, purportedly based on a handwriting expert and GEQD report. The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 10.07.2020 denying the allegations.

Thereafter, the applicant was dismissed from service on 19.08.2020 by the disciplinary authority under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968, dispensing with the departmental enquiry. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicant filed OA No. 503 of 2021 before this Tribunal, which by order dated 05.04.2022 quashed and set aside the dismissal order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents reinstated the applicant in service on 21.06.2022, though arrears of salary for the intervening period were not paid.

Subsequently, the respondents issued a charge sheet dated 07.11.2022 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968 alleging impersonation in the recruitment examination, relying upon CFSL report dated 14.11.2019 and Finger Print Examiner report dated 19.03.2019. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations and also sought supply of certain documents necessary for his defence. The applicant contends that despite repeated requests, certain relevant documents sought by him were not supplied. He also raised objections regarding the absence of prosecution witnesses and Presenting Officer and the manner in which the enquiry was being conducted.

The enquiry proceedings were conducted thereafter, during which the applicant participated and submitted representations raising legal objections and asserting that there was no case of impersonation, relying inter alia upon an Unfair Means Certificate issued by RRB indicating that no case of unfair means was recorded in the examination.

The Inquiry Officer ultimately submitted his enquiry report dated 16.02.2023, holding the charges proved.