Rohan Mahto vs The Steel Authority Of India ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1435 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No. 3230 of 2017
                                       .....

Rohan Mahto --- --- Petitioner Versus

1. The Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chief Managing Director, New Delhi.

2. The Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

3. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Appellate Authority, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

4. The Junior Manager, Pers, W-S, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

5. The General Manager, Mechanical & Disciplinary Authority, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

6. The Deputy General Manager I/c (Mechanical Maintenance), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro.

7. The Assistant General Manager (Pers/W) and Enquiry Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. -- --- Respondents

---

CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through Video Conferencing

---

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv.
            For the Respondents        : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Adv.
                                           ---
07/22.03.2021       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner is the applicant aggrieved by dismissal of Original Application No.051/00106/2015 vide order dated 13th February 2017 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi). Applicant had approached the learned Tribunal against the separation order no.35453/O dated 16.11.2012 issued by the respondent no.6 whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. Petitioner also challenged the appellate order dated 19.06.2013 whereby the penalty was affirmed.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner as pleaded before the learned Tribunal and borne from the records is that the applicant participated in a written exam held on 4th September 2007 known as Trade Test pursuant to the notification dated 18th June 2007 issued by the respondents and was appointed as Mobile Equipment Operator vide letter dated 10th September 2007. Latter he was served with a charge memo dated 7 th March 2011 of having furnished false information of particulars for the purposes of his employment. The imputation of misconduct alleged that he had not appeared in the written examination and secured his appointment fraudulently. Petitioner submitted his reply contesting the charge and also took the

plea that the charges were vague and non-specific. According to him, he participated in the recruitment process and the allegations of impersonation were false. Inquiry report was submitted on 27th January 2012 and the Inquiry Officer found the charges not proved as under :-

"Findings:-

From the above, the following facts emerged - Shri Rohan Mahto has been charge sheeted for giving false information regard one's particulars for the purpose of employment. However, in the statement of allegation given by the management, details has been mentioned which is contradictory to the allegation made in the charge sheet to CSE which may be seen at page no.1 and 2/C. Going through the details in the case and document submitted in the enquiry, from management side nothing has been produced before the enquiry committee against DXE for giving false information regarding his particulars for the purpose of employment as alleged in the charge sheet. At para 2 of the statement of allegation it is obvious that the management has accepted that the employee had appeared in the written test scheduled on 04/09/2007 and has furnished his particulars in the counterfoil of the answer sheet and signed it. It means that the candidate was available in the examination hall for the purpose of examination for the post which is in conformity with the statements given by the defence witnesses who were the eye witnesses. Further, on the other hand simply on the basis of signature verification report received from GEQD that the signature made available as standard/specimen signatures to Vigilance by the CSE do not match with signature available on coded counterfoil of the answer sheet and signature available on his joining report which was the basis of selection for the post of M.E.O. in SAIL/BSL do not appear in line with natural justice to be provided to the charge sheet employee.

Conclusion :

After considering the facts made available through statements/documents by the management as well as the CSE side the following conclusion is drawn -

Shri Rohan Mahto was charge sheeted for giving false information regarding his particulars for the purpose of employment but nowhere it has been proved by the management that at any stage the CSE has given false information in connection with his employment.

The statement of allegation itself is contradictory because in its 2nd para it is stated that CSE appeared in the written examination for selection whereas in the 3rd para it is said that CSE did not appear in the aforesaid written examination on the only basis of the opinion given by the AGEQD, Kolkata which does not relate with the circumstances mentioned in the 2nd para of the statement of allegation.

Further on the basis of the statement of Defence Witnesses (DW), who were present in the examination hall, had mentioned that Shri

Rohan Mahto was present in the examination hall on 04/09/2007 along with them for the aforesaid written examination while no witness has been produced from the management side who has seen that the CSE was not there in the examination hall. Thus, the charges leveled against Shri Rohan Mahto are not being proved."

4. The disciplinary authority recorded his reasons for differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer while issuing notice dated 6 th October 2012 upon the applicant asking him to show-cause as to why necessary disciplinary action as per Company Rules be not taken against him. The following reasons were recorded by the disciplinary authority while differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer :-

"(i) The Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the conclusive findings of GEQD which is based on scientific tools and cannot merely be set aside without giving equally situated technical reasons. Thus, the enquiry committee failed to appreciate the importance of GEQD opinion in this case. The defence also failed to controvert the findings of GEQD during the enquiry proceedings.

(ii) The Enquiry Officer has failed to appreciate the part of statement of allegation wherein it has been stated that the signature of CSE do not match in the coded counterfoil of his answer sheet and the joining report. This part of the statement of allegation has not been evaluated with the findings of his enquiry.

(iii) Both the defence witnesses have stated that they have not seen the CSE signing in the coded counterfoil of answer sheet.

It is also very unlikely that after a span of 4 years DW-1 and DW-2 who met CSE for the first time on 4.9.2007 for a very short period still remember distinctly that they met CSE and also his seat location.

(iv) The signatures of Sri Rohan Mahto on his coded counterfoil of answer sheet, joining report and specimen signatures provided to Vigilance Department at a glance also appears to mismatch, which has been confirmed by GEQD."

5. Upon consideration of the petitioner's reply at Annexure-12, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 16th November 2012 (Annexure-C at page-143). Appeal preferred by the applicant was also dismissed vide order dated 19th June 2013. Applicant being aggrieved, approached the learned CAT in Original Application

No.051/00106/2015 and inter alia took the following grounds :-

(A) The impugned order of dismissal and the appellate order are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(B) If the order of dismissal has not been passed by the disciplinary authority nor it has the approval of disciplinary authority, the same is without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed.

(C) The order of dismissal of service has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and is shockingly disproportionate.

(D) The charges of misconduct have not been proved against the applicant. Any disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority has to be backed by reason. The order of dismissal is therefore arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

(E) The disciplinary authority could not have travelled beyond the charges of imputation and penalized the applicant for non- specific charges.

(F) The disciplinary authority could not rely upon the extraneous charges to penalize the allegation.

(G) The reply in defence of the applicant have not been considered while imposing such a harsh punishment.

(H) The departmental proceeding is vitiated for not giving opportunity of hearing and defence to the applicant to cross- examine the witnesses and adduce the evidence in his support.

(I) The orders of dismissal and the appellate authority have been passed in mechanical manner without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.

6. The respondents in their written statements before the learned CAT took the following plea :

(i) The signature put as "Rohan Kumar" on the coded counter foil of the answer sheet and the subsequent signature as Rohan Mahto in the joining report differed. This necessitated verification of two different types of signatures of Rohan Mahto

by an expert agency. Therefore, the questioned document, specimen signature and admitted signatures were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). All the signatures were sent in original. The specimen signatures were obtained from the candidates in Vigilance Department. Each candidate was asked to put 10 specimen signatures. However, in case of applicant Rohan Mahto, 20 specimen signatures were obtained. 10 of them were put as Rohan Mahto and 10 were put as Rohan Kumar. This became necessary because the applicant had signed as Rohan Kumar in the coded counter foil of the answer sheet, whereas he signed as Rohan Mahto in the joining report. This aspect was also intimated to GEQD. The signature which was to be verified was the signature on the coded counter foil of the answer sheet, which was different from admitted signature of the applicant which is on his joining report. The verification of GEQD was based on different signatures sent to him.

(ii) From the opinion of GEQD it was established that the applicant had not appeared in the written examination held on 4th September 2007.

(iii) The offer of appointment was issued in the name of Shri Rohan Mahto but discrepancy was found in the coded counter foil of the answer sheet and the joining report and therefore the matter was referred to the GEQD. From the report of GEQD it was found that he had not appeared in the written examination which was the recruitment exam for the post of HVD and MEO in Bokaro Plant of SAIL.

(iv) The charge sheet was supported by statement of allegation in the following words :

"As per the terms of selection for the post you have to appear for the written test scheduled on 4.9.2007 ...... on verification of your signatures in the coded counter foil of the answer sheets and your signature on the joining report, it has been reported that the signature do not match. Thus, it is evident that you had not appeared in the written examination which was the basis of selection for the post of HVD and MEO in SAIL - BSL copy of the said allegation is already annexed with the petition."

(v) The charge sheet read with the imputation of allegation clearly showed that the signatures in the coded counter foil in the answer sheets and the joining report were substantially at variance. The handwriting expert found it to be not of the same person and as such charge sheet was issued against the applicant read with the statement of allegation. It shows that the charges were neither vague nor non-specific as claimed by the applicant.

(vi) The requests of the applicant for additional document and production of witnesses were rejected by the enquiry officer as he failed to show the relevance of the documents and the need for examining additional witness during the enquiry.

(vii) The disciplinary authority assigned reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer which were proper and justified. Before taking a final view in the matter, the disciplinary authority decided to give a final notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report and the grounds of his disagreement vide letter dated 6th October 2012.

The respondents also took the plea that the opinion of the handwriting expert was obtained from the Directorate of Forensic Science (GEQD) whose findings were based on scientific tools. Copy of the opinion dated 8th October 2010 was enclosed as Annexure-B to their written statement. The respondents denied that the reply to the final notice was not considered by the disciplinary authority before passing the order of separation as is revealed from the speaking order itself. The appellate authority agreed with the disciplinary authority after considering the report of the inquiry committee together with all the relevant documents. No rejoinder thereto was filed by the petitioner.

7. Learned CAT, upon consideration of the rival pleas and the documents on record, proceeded to hold as under :-

"(a) It is evident from the records that the termination of the applicant has been the end result of a duly conducted disciplinary proceeding in which the applicant has participated and wherein he has been extended an appropriate opportunity to present his defence at various stages. It is also clear from the submissions of

the applicant and his documents that his claims of procedural impropriety, denial of due opportunity and competence are vague/general and that no specific instance has been enumerated.

Perusal of the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure-13) in its proper/full context reveals that the order of dismissal from service has been passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority and conveyed through the appropriate channels. As such, there are no issues of its validity.

(b) It is also noted that the origin of the action against the applicant lies in investigation of the Vigilance Department regarding irregularities in the recruitment of Heavy Vehicle Drivers/ME Operators. Further, that the said investigation was not only in respect of the applicant but other persons as well. Therefore, prima facie, there is no basis to assume / suspect any malafide or discrimination in regard to the action taken by the respondents against the applicant per se.

(c) It is further noted that the basis of the disciplinary action against the applicant is the forensic evidence / finding relating to the signature of the applicant on the counter foil of the answer sheet and the signature on his joining report. That the forensic examination has clearly established that there is a mismatch between the two signatures. Forensic evidence / findings are the result of well recognized and established scientific processes. As such, what emerges after such forensic examination [that too by an established / recognized Government institution like the Directorate of Forensic Science] cannot be summarily rejected or negated casually. In the instant case, while these findings have formed the basis of the action against the applicant, the said action has been taken after conducting proper disciplinary proceedings as per rules and a full appreciation of the facts and circumstances. That being the case, the judicial percepts referred to in the citation of the applicant do not have applicability in this case when the forensic findings are a part of a fuller and duly conducted inquiry against the applicant.

(d) It is also noted that to the extent the inquiry officer has attempted to summarily negate and brush aside the forensic evidence against the applicant, there are obvious and serious issues of credibility and logic vis-à-vis the conclusions arrived at in his inquiry report. That being the case, there appears to be ample justification in the decision of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the inquiry report on grounds that the inquiry officer "has not appreciated the conclusive evidence of the GEQD which is based on scientific tools and cannot merely be set aside without giving equally situated technical reasons. Thus, the inquiry committee failed to appreciate the importance of the GEQD opinion in this case. The defence also failed to controvert the findings of the GEQD in the inquiry proceedings". It is also noted that apart from the above noted substantive observation, the disciplinary authority has cited other reasons also for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry report. In sum, therefore, this Tribunal does not find any questionable issue of transparency, logic or objectivity in the action of the disciplinary authority in issuing a disagreement notice dated 6.10.2012 [Annexure-11] to the applicant along with a copy of the inquiry report. It is further

noted that the prerogative to disagree with the inquiry report, on grounds to be clearly enumerated, clearly lies with the disciplinary authority and, there are no issue of competence in his exercise of the same. In the response submitted by the applicant to this notice at Annexure-12, no issue of competence has been raised either.

(e) It is also clear from the perusal of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority on 16.11.2012 [Annexure-13] and by the appellate authority on 19.06.2013 [Annexure-15] that these are reasoned and speaking in nature and that they clearly outline the rationale and basis for their decision. As such, here too, there are no issues of transparency or logic which can challenge the validity of these orders. As already mentioned earlier, the applicant, on his part, has clearly failed to substantively establish the grounds on which the action taken by the respondents can be questioned or invalidated.

In view of the above, this Tribunal finds no basis to interfere with the action taken against the applicant by the respondents. It is held that his removal from service has been just and justifiable given the forensic evidence / findings against him and that the impugned orders have been issued after due process and after giving him due opportunity to defend himself at various stages stipulated as per rules / guidelines in the matter. In the result, the reliefs prayed for in para 8 of the OA are denied in full and the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia made the following submissions to assail the findings of the learned Tribunal :-

(i) Learned Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant's request for examination of the forensic expert (GEQD) was not allowed by the enquiry officer, though the opinion of the GEQD has been the basis for holding the applicant liable for the misconduct.

(ii) Learned Tribunal failed to consider that the disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate that there was no misconduct by the petitioner while in service and as such the very initiation of departmental proceeding was bad in the eyes of law.

(iii) Learned Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that the only basis for dismissal of this petitioner was the report of GEQD of the Directorate of Forensic Science, but the author of the report was never called upon to depose during the departmental proceeding. Mere production of a document is not sufficient to prove the content of the document and punish the petitioner on that basis.

(iv) Learned Tribunal also failed to take into account that the inquiry

report exonerated the petitioner after due consideration of the report of the GEQD and the other documents and witnesses adduced by the rival parties.

(v) The reasons for difference recorded by the disciplinary authority are unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the charges being non-specific and vague, the applicant was precluded from offering his defence in a proper manner causing violation of principle of natural justice. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in support of the submission that even in a disciplinary inquiry the charges are required to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities by bringing some evidence on record to that effect, relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 88 para-25] and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 570 para 14 and 15]. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly brought to the notice of this Court that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has earlier been pleased to dismiss a similar challenge in the case of one Lallan Prasad in W.P.(S) No.4095 of 2016. He, however, submits that some of the grounds taken by this petitioner were not raised in the said writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has, in reply, submitted that the allegations of the charge being non-specific and vague are neither here nor there. Though petitioner has enclosed the charge sheet at page-72 but the imputation of misconduct containing the details of the allegations have not been enclosed in the writ petition. However, the same was brought on record by way of written statement before the learned Tribunal as Annexure-B and has been taken note of by the learned CAT. It is submitted that the coded counter foil at page-139 of the petition clearly shows that the applicant had applied in the name of 'Rohan Mahto' but had signed as 'Rohan Kumar'. This document has been marked as Q-6 for the purpose of forensic examination of his signatures. He further points out to the joining report at page-142 where the petitioner has put his signature as 'Rohan Mahto'. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that therefore 10 specimen signatures of the petitioner as 'Rohan Mahto' and 10 as 'Rohan Kumar' were taken and sent to the Central

Forensic Science Laboratory under the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India along with the questioned documents. The opinion of the GEQD at page-137 paragraph-5 is in the following words :-

"5. The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked S6.1 to S6.20 and A6 did not write the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked Q6."

11. He submits that a comparison of the questioned documents along with specimen signature by the naked eye would also reveal that they have not been inscribed by one and the same person. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire plea of non-examination of the forensic expert during inquiry proceedings is an after-thought since the applicant did not raise any such plea while offering his reply to the final notice of the disciplinary authority containing the difference of opinion with the inquiry report. Ordinarily the report of forensic expert which functions under the Directorate of Forensic Science, is not liable to be questioned. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted by observance of proper procedure and due opportunity to the delinquent employee/applicant. The disciplinary authority has also met the requirement of recording difference of opinions from the inquiry report and had given opportunity to the applicant before imposing the order of penalty. The order of dismissal is well reasoned and passed after due consideration of the reply of the petitioner as also all the materials brought on record during the inquiry proceedings including the opinion of GEQD. It is submitted that earlier in an identical case of Lallan Prasad; W.P.(S) No.4095 of 2016 the Coordinate Bench of this Court has refused to interfere in the order of the learned CAT and upheld the order of penalty of dismissal from service. In the said case also the signatures of the delinquent employee on the coded counter foil of the answer sheet, joining report and the specimen signatures did not match as per the opinion of the GEQD. The plea of non-examination of the forensic expert had also been raised by the said writ petitioner as taken note of at paragraph-10 of the judgment. The learned Division Bench of this Court had also repelled the plea of personal hearing in a case where the disciplinary authority differs from the report of the inquiry officer relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of J.A. Naiksatam Vs. Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court of Bombay & Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 653].

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those relied upon by the petitioner i.e. in the case of M.V. Bijlani (supra) and Roop Singh Negi (supra). The charges in those cases were different and more over it was not a case where the report of a forensic expert was the basis for proceeding in the disciplinary authority such as the present one. In the present case the proceedings have been initiated on a serious charge of furnishing false particulars in procuring appointment and indulging in impersonation while appearing in the recruitment exam. The case of the present applicant, being identical to that of Lallan Prasad, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order on the same grounds on which a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held otherwise after due consideration of the material pleadings on record and the rival grounds taken by the petitioner. It is submitted that the writ petition being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.

13. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant material pleadings on record relied upon by them. We have also perused the impugned order. We find that the case of the applicant and that of Lallan Prasad in W.P.(S) No. 4095 of 2016 stand on same footing and originate from the similar charges in respect of the same recruitment exercise for the post of ME Operator/ HV Driver. The present petitioner had inscribed a signature as Rohan Kumar different from his name Rohan Mahto at the time of appearing in the exam whereas he signed as Rohan Mahto, his original name as per his application, while submitting his joining report. Therefore, the signatures on the coded counterfoil of the answer-sheet and his joining report along with 10 specimen signatures each as 'Rohan Mahto' and 'Rohan Kumar' were sent for forensic examination to the GEQD under the Directorate of Forensic Science. The opinion of the Directorate of Forensic Science at page-137 quoted above shows that his signatures in the questioned document marked Q6 were different from the blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked as S6.1 to S6.20 and A6. It was on the basis of this report that departmental proceedings were initiated against him for giving false information regarding his particulars for the purposes of employment. Though the charge-sheet dated 7th March, 2011 has been

enclosed at page-72 but the imputation of misconduct has not been enclosed to the writ petition. However, it appears from the order passed by learned CAT that the respondents had brought it on record along with their written statement. Applicant, in his written statement, before the enquiry officer took the plea of innocence and sought discarding of the report of the Forensic expert by questioning the technique of such verification. Applicant also seems to have made a request for certain documents and production of witness i.e., the invigilator to be present before the Enquiry Committee. However, applicant in his written statement before the enquiry officer does not appear to have made a request for examination of the forensic expert. In the opinion of the enquiry officer the charges were not proved. The enquiry officer took into account the statement of defence witnesses, who were present in the examination hall as candidates on 4th September, 2007. However, these defence witnesses had denied that they had seen the applicant signing on the coded counterfoil. The disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer while recording his reasons as have been quoted hereinabove. The disciplinary authority observed that the findings of the GEQD have not been properly appreciated by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer had also failed to appreciate the part of the statement of allegations where it was stated that signature of CSE did not match in the coded counterfoil of his answer- sheet and the joining report. He also opined that the defence witnesses had stated that they had not seen the CSE signing in the coded counterfoil of the answer-sheet. It was very unlikely that after span of four years D.W.1 and DW 2 who met the CSE for the first time on 4 th September, 2007 for a very short period would still remember distinctly that they met him and also his seat location. The disciplinary authority also recorded that signatures of the applicant on the coded counterfoil of the answer-sheet, joining report and specimen signatures provided to the Vigilance Department also appeared to mismatch at a glance which has been confirmed by the GEQD. Petitioner, in his reply to the second show-cause notice, did not seek examination of the forensic expert i.e. the author of the forensic report. Instead, the applicant tried to make out a case that the report of GEQD was not explicit on which scientific method they have examined the genuineness of the signature. Upon consideration of the reply and the materials brought on record during enquiry proceedings including the report of GEQD, the disciplinary authority passed

the order of penalty dated 16th November, 2012 holding that it was not desirable and in the interest of the company to retain him in the employment of the company in such circumstances. The appellate authority also concurred with the view of the disciplinary authority.

14. We find from a perusal of the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lallan Prasad, who was also proceeded for similar charges in respect of a misconduct of procuring employment by furnishing false particulars under the same recruitment exercise, that the learned Court has taken into note the plea raised by the petitioner herein as well. In fact, in the present case, it appears that the plea of examination of the forensic expert has been raised for the first time before this Court. His written statement of defence submitted before the enquiry officer, referred to hereinabove, indicates that he had made a request for production of the Invigilator as a witness and not the forensic expert. It is also to be taken note of that the applicant has not taken any plea of malafide or discrimination in the matter of obtaining forensic opinion as respect his signature since the signature of at least 7 persons appear to have been sent for forensic examination out of which signatures of four persons did not appear to match with the specimen signature while the rest three were found to be matching. Therefore, a new plea is being taken by the applicant before this Court, which is not supported by the materials which were part of the enquiry proceedings. The report of the GEQD/handwriting expert under the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be said to be a doubtful document. Moreover the said document was adduced during the enquiry proceedings in which the petitioner participated and has also, in his reply to the second show- cause notice, referred to.

15. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that learned Tribunal did not fell in error while holding that the charges of misconduct had been established during departmental enquiry after proper opportunity to the petitioner and on the basis of the report of the Directorate of Forensic Science, which cannot be summarily rejected or negated casually. The findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore did not appear to suffer from lack of reasoning or vitiated on any established grounds of judicial review. At the same time, we find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has refused to interfere in the findings of the disciplinary authority, the

appellate authority and the order of learned CAT concerning the petitioner Lallan Prasad, who was also proceeded against and punished for identical charges.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. Petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of M.V. Bijlani (supra) and Roop Singh Negi (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record during disciplinary proceedings. The material evidence in the instant case is the report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) under the Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, the decisions cited cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.

16. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                                 (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)


Shamim/                                        (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)