,^^s:$-^-/ .^>.v^>^-^^ lli^'^^-""" , ,8'»E-''^^--"TNTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^•" wnt petitton NO. / 2005 3 Petidoner/ Puspraj Verma S/o Jagdish Prasad Verraa,.-"' Applicant Age about 27 Yrs. R/o C/o S.S. Rajput, Near P.H.E. Office, Durg Road, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) 491 335 VERSUS Respondent /l. Union of India, Through, / Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi Non- ^. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi Applicant 3; Chairman, RRB, D-79/80, Rail Vihar, BDA Rental Colony, South'Eastern Railway Project Complex, Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, (Ori.) 751023 Assailing Order Dated 12/05/2005 Passed By Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, In OA No. 743/ 04." (Annexure -P/11 PETITION UNDER ART 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: - Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Nlanindra Mohan Shriwstava, JJ, Petitioner/ Applicant y] Resoondeny Non-apDlicant W. P. No.4516/2005 Puspraj Verma Versus Union of India and others I'ct; Order for consideration SdA ------ ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge ..itate HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI O^A-U- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Post for pronouncement of ordec Sd/- "*NB»»WUi«l(!(U Jy^,'.^ ^ ^ait^ji LK; ,0 ! H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench Coram: - Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. Petitioner/ Applicant RespondenU Non-applicant W. P. No.4516/2005 Puspraj Verma Versus Union of India and others (Petition under Articte 227 of the ConsUtution of India) Present: - Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, counsel forthe respondents. ORDER (Passed on this It^dav of February, 2010) Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. By ttiis petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the pedtioner has assailed the order dated 12-05-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sitting at Bilaspur (For short "the Tribunal") in Original Application No.743 of 2004, by which, original application filed bythe petitioner has been dismissed. (2) Relerant facts as revealed from the record and necessary for adjudication of controversy invoh/ed in the petition are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Trainee Assistant Driver (Electrical/Diesel) in response to Employment Notice No.JEN/1^002 of Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneshwar and ff &, v ffa' ~vi. '"!. 3 i l^ %s:^// '•isasy ^i "%Efcsrff-"1 tl •z- Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata, jointly. It is the case ofthe petitioner that he appeared in the written examination and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was calted for psychological test followed by vision test and after that he was called for certificate verification in the office of Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneshwar on 11-06-2003. Thesignatures and handwritings ofthe petitioner obtained on the date of certificate verification appeared to be different from that available in his application form, question booktet of written examination and call letters of written examination and psychotogical test. In view of this disclosure, petitioner's case along with all relevant papers were sent to Govemment Examiner of Questioned Documents (For short "GEQD"), Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata vide Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneshwar letter dated 27-11-2003 for verification and opinion regarding the genuineness of the candidate who appeared with Roll No.018111 in written test, psychological test and certificate verification i.e. whether the petitioner himself appeared at the written examination and psychological test or not. GEQD after examining all the documents sent to it, opined in its letter dated 11-12-2003 that the signature taken in call letter on the date of psychological test differe from that available in his application and one taken on the date of certificate verification. Consequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner vide Raihway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneshwar letter dated 24-03-2004 canceling his candidature for the post of Trainee Assistant Driver (Electrical/Dieset) and further debamng him for life from all Railway appointments in terms of Railway Board's Guidelines dated 14-02-2002. (3) Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation of candidature and debarring from Railway examination, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.743/2004. ^•'ss,"*'*.. .f,f-% % ^*»;^!?3^ ^i WMfc. S ,'r^ '^'^-^^^^^'•^-^ ."•:i ^ ~^ ^ ¥"-•'.^' -1. (4) In reply filed before the Tribunal, the respondents defended their action of cancellation of candidature and debarring from appearing in all Railway Recrurtment Board examinations by placing on record the opinion of GEQD. (5) Before the Tribunal, the ach'on of cancellation of candidature and debarring from appearing in all Railway Recruitment Board examinations was assailed on the submission that opinion obtained by the respondents to the effect that the signatures of the petitioner differed on different document i.e. call letter. on the date of Psychological Test and on the date of certificate verification, are not correct. It was also submitted that the respondents did not provide details of documents examined by the expert nor made available copies of those documents along with the reply filed before the Tribunal. Further submission was that petitioneralone could have entered into the examinatfon hall with call letter bearing his photograph. Case of impersonation is improbable because it was not possible to impersonate him, as it could have been checked by the Invigilator and other persons on duty. It was also submitted that the opinion of the handwriting expert could not be relied upon without corroborating evidence. The action of cancellation of candidature and debarring from appearing in all Raihway Recruitment Board examinations was also assailed by submitting that the thumb impression available with the respondents was not compared and verified and the hand writing expert was also not examined by the r^pondents. (6) Before the Tribunal, the respondents stated that it was a case of impersonation. The peCtioner's signatures and handwriUngs were sent to the proper government authority for comparison wlth the signatures and handwritings available in the question booklet and the authority had confirmed that the •K^^-t.Ti^-... 'eB'sa^ A- signatures and handwrrtings diflered. On such report, action was taken by the respondents to cancel the candidature and debarred the petitioner for life from future employment in Raihways. tt was also submitted by the respondents that there was no need to examine the handwriting expert as it was not a criminal case. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(S.) No.2864 of 2004 (Shree Kant Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) wherein almost identical situation and circumstances, petition was dismissed. (7) The Tribunal came to the conclusion ttiat the respondents had verified the signature and handwriting of the petitioner and found that the signatures on the call letter and also on the answer sheets written by Uie petitioner, as also the handwriting are different. The Tribunal also took into consideration the material available on record that ttie case of the petitioner along witti all relevant papers were sent to the GEQD, Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata, for verification and opinion regarding the genuineness of the petitioner and deflnite finding was given that the handwriting was not same on different documents written by the petitioner. The Tribunal rejected the contention ofthe petitioner that the examiner ought to have been examined before a judicial authority on the thumb impression and held ttiat in criminal case only, clinching evidence is required whereas in the present case, only preponderance of probability is required. The Tribunal further held that it could not sit over the opinion gwen by the govemment examiner as an appellate Court. (8) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal has been assailed before us on the submission that the Tribunat failed to exercise the power vested in it by law as it was bound to examine whether ttie order of cancellation of candidature impugned before the Tribunal was based on relevant material. It has been ^- argued that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the decision of canceltation and debarring from appearing in all Railway Recruitment Board examinations was based on irrelevant material. Further submission was that 'rt was mainly a challenge to the relevancy and sufRciency of the considerations which was taken into account while taking action impugned before the Tribunal. As the action of cancellation of candidature and debarring from appearing in all Raihway Recruitment Board examinations is a life long impact and stigma, the same being quasi criminalin nature, finding recorded by the Tribunal that preponderance of probabilities were required for taking action, suffers from perversity. (9) From the impugned order dated 12-05-2005 passed by the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has taken into consideration various grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner, as reflected in para 3 of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded a finding Uiat there was material in the form of opinion of GEQD, Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata to support the action taken by the respondents against the petffioner. The said report of the govemment examiner was also placed on record before the Tribunal in which it was opined that the petitioner's signatures and handwritings sent to the proper govemment auttiority for comparison with the signatures and handwritings available in the question booklet and the same were found to be different and did not match. Further, it cannot be said that ttie Tribunal misdirected itself in rejecting petitioner's contention that the report of handwriting expert could not form basis for action unless the examiner was examined befbre a judicial authority on the thumb impression. Moreover, the Tribunal has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record in recording that in the case in hand, action of cancellation of candidature could be sustained on preponderance of probabilities and burden of proof as required in criminal case is not necessary. We do not think that the ,A Tribunal adopted any wrong approach or failed to apply correct principles of law in this regard. The report of handwriting expert namely GEQD, Central Forensic Institute, Kolkata constituted sufficient and relevant material to take decision to cancel the peUtioner's candidature and debamng him from future examinations. The Tribunal righUy held that it could not sit as an appellate Court over the opinion given by the govemment examiner. It is trite law that the Courts and Tribunals do not enter upon the exercise of reassessment of oral and documentary evidence as an appellate authority or as a fact finding body. (10) In view of foregoing, we do not find that ttie Tribunal has commMtod any jurisdictional error or recorded any perverse finding warranting interference in exercise of supenrisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (11) tn the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastav; Judge Sd/- Satish K. Agnihbtri Judge Tomane