A finding of malingering requires clear, cogent, and unambiguous medical evidence.

The applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Line Clear Porter in the North Eastern Railway on 15 June 2005 and was subsequently promoted as a Kantawala.

During his periodical medical examination in January 2014, his colour vision was found doubtful, leading to referrals to IMS, BHU, Varanasi; Dr. R.P. Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi; and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Central Railway Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai.

Neither the BHU nor AIIMS reports recorded a definite finding of malingering.

At UBMI, Mumbai, colour-vision tests were conducted on 11 March 2014. The applicant alleged that the original report recorded reduced P50 and N95 responses bilaterally, but that the report was taken back and replaced on the same date with a modified report showing a normal ERG response.

On the basis of the medical reports dated 17 January 2014 and 15 April 2014, the Railway authorities treated the applicant as a case of malingering under Para 512(2)(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000.

In the meantime, the applicant was attached to the DRM’s Office, Varanasi, and utilized as an Office Clerk on a temporary basis pursuant to an order dated 16 May 2014.

He was not finally absorbed in an equivalent alternative post and was denied HRA on the ground that his posting was temporary.

The Divisional Operating Manager subsequently observed on 11 January 2017 that it was not fair to declare the applicant a case of malingering on the basis of the controversial medical reports and recommended consideration of his absorption.

Nevertheless, the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, by order dated 26 May 2017, maintained that the applicant’s case was an established case of malingering.

The applicant challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were justified in treating the applicant as an established case of malingering under Para 512(2)(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000, on the basis of the medical reports relied upon by them despite the contradictory reports dated 11 March 2014 and the absence of a definite finding of malingering in the earlier specialist reports?

Whether the applicant was entitled to reconsideration of his permanent absorption in an equivalent alternative post and his claim for HRA and consequential service benefits after having continued for several years in a temporary clerical arrangement?

Whether the impugned order dated 26 May 2017 was legally sustainable when it failed to adequately consider the complete medical record and did not provide reasoned findings?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied Para 512(2)(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000, which governs cases involving medical de-categorisation, alternative appointment, and suspected or established malingering in railway service.

The Tribunal reiterated that assessment of medical fitness is primarily within the domain of a duly constituted Medical Board or competent medical authority and that courts and tribunals ordinarily should not substitute their own medical opinion for that of such authorities.

However, an administrative decision based on medical material must consider the complete record, address material contradictions, comply with procedural fairness, and be supported by clear, cogent reasons; an order having civil consequences must be reasoned and speaking.

The Tribunal found that the reports from IMS, BHU and AIIMS did not contain any definite finding of malingering, while the two reports dated 11 March 2014 from UBMI allegedly contained materially different findings concerning the ERG response—one recording reduced P50 and N95 responses bilaterally and the other showing a normal response.

This contradiction created substantial doubt requiring proper consideration by the competent authority.

The Tribunal also relied on the DOM’s own observation dated 11 January 2017 that it was unfair to declare the applicant a malingerer on the basis of the disputed reports.

Although the Tribunal declined to substitute its own medical assessment for that of the medical authorities, it held that the finding of malingering, carrying serious civil consequences, could not be sustained without clear and unambiguous medical evidence and a reasoned evaluation of the entire record.

Further, the applicant’s continuation for nearly twelve years as a temporary Office Clerk, without a final decision on equivalent absorption or HRA, was held to be unsatisfactory and required fresh consideration.

The respondents were directed to reconsider, after examining the complete medical record—including both reports dated 11 March 2014 and the DOM’s observations dated 11 January 2017—the applicant’s alleged malingering, permanent absorption against an alternative equivalent post, and claim for HRA and other consequential service benefits under the applicable rules and Para 512(2)(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000.

The respondents were required to provide the applicant an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

No order was made as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.