The Allahabad High Court has allowed the petition challenging the order dated 1 May 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby, their candidature for appointment on Group-D post had been rejected.
The Division Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vijay Pal and 22 Others.
Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad (RRC), invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to Group-D posts, i.e, Khalasi, Helper, Trackman, Peon, Parcel Porter, Safaiwala, etc under North Central Railway, advertisement dated 27 July, 2013.
The Petitioners appeared for the written test and were declared successful. The select list was published on the official website of R.R.C. on 15 December 2015. Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the Physical Examination Test (P.E.T), held between 10 March 2015 to 14 March 2015, finally, 2609 candidates, including the petitioners came to be declared successful in the PET.
Thereafter, all the candidates, including petitioners were called for verification of the documents and medical examination.
The candidature of the petitioners was rejected with the remarks ‘handwriting/thumb impression mismatch’.
Aggrieved, petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing original application, Vijay Pal and others versus Union of India and others, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 1 May 2018.
During pendency of the original application, an interim order dated 31 December 2015, was granted by the Tribunal directing the respondents to keep 23 Group-D posts vacant.
During pendency of the original application, petitioners came to be issued memorandum dated 23 January 2016, stating therein, that though the candidature of the petitioners was already cancelled, however, petitioners were called upon by the respondents to show cause as to why they may not be debarred from all future R.R.C/R.R.B examinations, further, why criminal case may not be instituted against them for indulging in malpractice to procure Government job by fraud and misrepresentation.
The notice alleged that the petitioners had resorted to impersonation, further, it was alleged that there was mismatch in the handwriting, and/or, thumb impression of the candidates. In other words, the allegation against the petitioners was that they have resorted, by securing the services of someone else, in the written test on their behalf.
Petitioners filed their objections to the show cause notice/ memorandum denying the allegations of impersonation or mismatch in handwriting, and/or, thumb impression. The respondent authority vide order dated 31 March 2016, rejected the objection stating that the reply submitted by the petitioners were not found satisfactory. Consequently, petitioners were debarred from taking future R.R.B/R.R.C examinations for life.
Aggrieved, petitioners through an amendment application challenged the memorandum dated 22 January 2016 and the debarment order dated 31 March 2016.
The Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the counsels for the respective parties, by the impugned order, partly allowed the original application of the petitioners. The impugned orders to the extent debarring the petitioners from future R.R.B/R.R.C examinations for life was set aside. The decision of the respondents, however, cancelling the candidature of the petitioners was not interfered with.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the allegation of impersonation levelled against the petitioners was held unworthy of belief by the Tribunal, rather, the allegation of impersonation was specifically rejected. The finding to that effect has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents.
It is, therefore, urged that after returning a categorical finding with regard to impersonation being unbelievable, the Tribunal committed an error in upholding the decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature of the petitioners at the examination. In other words, it is submitted that the petitioners had appeared for the examination and are entitled to appointment. In the circumstances, the question of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression would not arise.
It is further urged that it can safely be said that all the petitioners stand totally exonerated of the main charge of impersonation which was the substance and basis of the show cause notice/memorandum issued to them.
It is further submitted that the candidature of the petitioners came to be cancelled prior to the issue of show cause notice/memorandum, accordingly, there is an element of pre-determination of mind of the respondent-Railways against the petitioners. The memorandum was confined to debarment from all future examinations for resorting to impersonation.
“The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e, Written Test and P.E.T, thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was a mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e, the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material.
The respondent’s action otherwise is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice, accordingly, the order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic cannot be sustained”, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
The Court directed the Respondents to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith.