Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4479

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Narendra Kumar Johari, Judicial Member, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Suman Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 050/00161/2023|O.A. 050/00487/2023|O.A. 050/00490/2023|O.A. 050/00496/2023|O.A. 050/00195/2025|O.A. 050/00196/2025|O.A. 050/00197/2025|O.A. 050/00201/2025|O.A. 050/00203/2025|O.A. 050/00269/2025|M.A. 050/00219/2025|O.A. 050/00270/2025|M.A. 050/00220/2025|O.A. 050/00271/2025|M.A. 050/00221/2025|O.A. 050/00272/2025|M.A. 050/00222/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. P. Dixit
For the Respondents: Mr. A. K. Singh, Mr. T. N. Thakur, Mr. R. R. Singh, Mr. G. S. Prasad, Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Mr. H. R. Singh, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Mr. Radhika Raman, Mr. Kumar Sachin, Mr. Deepak Kumar, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey

Dismissal for impersonation quashed where charge memo lacked witnesses list; expert reports not conclusive. Natural justice requires cross-examination of experts before reliance.

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9, Rule 14(ii) - Impersonation in recruitment examination - Dismissal from service - Principles of natural justice - For imposition of major penalty, charge memo must contain list of witnesses - In absence of examining author of relied-upon documents, there is violation of principle that author of document is to be examined and cross-examined - Expert reports not conclusive - Opportunity to cross-examine experts must be afforded.

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 20 - Power of Tribunal to hear matter in 'beyond ordinary' situation - Once parties were allowed to proceed, objection as to maintainability is rejected.

(C) Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Onus of proof - Section 106 cannot be used to shift burden to applicants where charge memo is defective and witnesses are not provided.

(D) Expert Evidence (Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 39(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) - Expert need not be examined only where report is clear and expert's credentials are not in question. Under Indian Evidence Act, expert evidence is not conclusive and is open to rebuttal - Where report not conclusive, or credentials of 'expert' doubtful, cross-examination is a right and necessity.

Facts of the case:
The applicants, employees of the East Central Railway, were dismissed from service on the charge of impersonation in a recruitment examination for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The respondents relied on reports from a Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and a Fingerprint Examiner. An initial dismissal order was quashed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated, and the applicants were again dismissed. The applicants challenged the dismissal, inter alia, on the grounds that the charge memo did not contain a list of witnesses, the expert reports were not conclusive, and the credentials of one 'expert' (a retired official acting as a fingerprint examiner) were not established. The respondents argued that the case was covered by an earlier Tribunal order dismissing similar OAs, which order had since been set aside by the Patna High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the very basis of the respondents' defense (an earlier Tribunal order) was no longer valid. It held that the charge memo was defective for not including a list of witnesses to prove the documents. The CFSL report was not conclusive, as some handwriting matched and some did not. The credentials of the fingerprint examiner were doubtful, and the report of the fingerprint examiner was also contested. The Tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were grossly violated, necessitating the setting aside of the removal orders.

Issues: The main issues were: (1) Whether the dismissal orders were sustainable given the procedural defects in the charge memo and disciplinary proceedings; (2) Whether the applicants were entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the expert witnesses whose reports formed the basis of the charges. (3) Whether the respondents' reliance on a prior Tribunal order, which had been set aside by the High Court and Supreme Court, could sustain the present dismissals.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal ruled that a disciplinary proceeding under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is vitiated if the charge memo does not contain a list of prosecution witnesses. An expert's report, especially when it is not conclusive or its author's credentials are questioned, cannot be relied upon without providing the charged officer an opportunity to cross-examine the expert. The fact that an earlier order on similar facts had been set aside by the High Court and Supreme Court removed the basis for the respondents' opposition.

Result: All OAs allowed. Impugned removal orders quashed and set aside. Applicants to be reinstated within one month. Respondents at liberty to conduct fresh departmental proceedings by revising the charge memo to include a list of witnesses and appoint a Presenting Officer, strictly adhering to the Rules, 1968. Proceedings to be completed within six months. Option of placing applicants under suspension during inquiry open to respondents. No order as to cost.

Table of Content
1. batch of similar cases heard together due to common facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' arguments on procedural and merit grounds. (Para 3)
3. court's analysis rejecting procedural objections and noting prior decisions. (Para 4)
4. procedural violations require fresh inquiry with witness examination. (Para 5)

O R D E R

Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member

1.Due to parity in the nature of grievance and facts pleaded, OA/050/00161/2023 and 12 other cases 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/050/0161/2023 (Applicant: Suman 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 17.06.2015 and was posted in Danapur 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.

However, after about five years from the date of his appointment, the applicant received a show cause notice dated 30.04.2020 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 07.05.2020 denying the allegations. Thereafter, the applicant was dismissed from service on 29.05.2020 by the disciplinary authority under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, dispensing with the departmental enquiry. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicant filed OA No.258 of 2020 before this Tribunal, which by order dated 28.09.2021 quashed and set aside the dismissal order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents reinstated the applicant in service on 28.12.2021, though arrears of salary for the intervening period were not paid. Subsequently, the respondents issued a charge sheet dated 07.01.2022 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & 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.

During the course of the disciplinary proceedings, Sri Om Prakash Singh was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 24.03.2022. 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 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 through RTI dated 27.08.2022 indicating that no case of unfair means was recorded in the examination.

The Inquiry Officer ultimately submitted his enquiry report dated 17.12.2022, holding the charges proved. The applicant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document