Expert opinion is not conclusive proof of impersonation without examining authors and ensuring procedural fairness.

The applicant, an Assistant Loco Pilot recruited under CEN No. 01/2014, was removed from service on allegations of impersonation during the written examination

Following a previous Tribunal order (OA 340/2021) that quashed a summary removal under Rule 14(ii), the respondents initiated a regular departmental inquiry

The inquiry resulted in a fresh punishment order of removal dated 13.09.2022, primarily based on handwriting and fingerprint expert reports indicating a mismatch between the candidate’s examination papers and subsequent documents

The applicant challenged this as procedurally flawed, alleging that no oral witnesses were produced, the expert reports were not proven, and no opportunity for cross-examination was granted

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968

2. Whether an expert opinion report can be treated as conclusive proof in a departmental inquiry without the author of the report being examined as a witness

3. Whether the punishment of removal based on untested scientific reports is legally sustainable

The court applied Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates a formal procedure for imposing major penalties

The inquiry must still satisfy the minimum requirements of fairness, while the standard of proof in departmental inquiries is "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt"

An expert report is a mere opinion and not conclusive proof unless the author is examined and cross-examined as established in Sanjeev Kumar v. Union of India (OA 330/915/2021) and the Allahabad High Court’s affirmation in Writ-A No. 964 of 2024

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP in Union of India v. Amit Kumar, which upheld the necessity of a fresh inquiry when natural justice is breached

The Tribunal found that the controversy was identical to previous "bunch matters" where the same recruitment process was challenged

It observed that the respondents relied solely on scientific reports from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) without calling the experts as witnesses

The court reasoned that removing an employee from a safety-category post for impersonation is serious, but it cannot override the statutory requirement of a fair trial

Since no witnesses were named in the charge sheet and the applicant was denied the right to cross-examine the authors of the forensic reports, the inquiry was deemed "procedurally defective" and "vitiated"

Following the "balanced approach" of the Patna and Allahabad High Courts, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate remedy was to restart the inquiry from the stage where the defect occurred

The Tribunal partly allowed the Original Application, quashing the punishment order dated 13.09.2022 and the appellate order dated 22.01.2024 and granted liberty to conduct a de novo inquiry to be completed within six months, ensuring full compliance with procedural rules.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant’s reinstatement status (whether active or under suspension) and the payment of back wages would be at the discretion of the authorities and subject to the final outcome of the fresh inquiry