Failure to produce expert witnesses for cross-examination regarding relied-upon forensic reports vitiates disciplinary proceedings.

The applicants were appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots (Electric) by the East Central Railway following a 2014 recruitment process

After serving for approximately five years and receiving promotions, they were issued show-cause notices in 2020 alleging impersonation during the recruitment examination

This allegation was based on reports from handwriting experts and the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD)

Initially, the applicants were dismissed under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which dispenses with a formal inquiry. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed these dismissals in earlier proceedings

Upon reinstatement, the Respondents issued fresh charge sheets under Rule 9 (Major Penalty)

An inquiry was conducted where the Inquiry Officer (IO) found the charges proved based on CFSL and Fingerprint Examiner reports

The applicants were subsequently dismissed from service in early 2023

The applicants challenged these dismissals, alleging procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to the non-inclusion of witnesses and the failure to examine the authors of the forensic reports relied upon by the Respondents

2. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer could be sustained given that the forensic reports were inconclusive and the credentials of the fingerprint expert were contested

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement and a fresh inquiry in light of the High Court and Supreme Court rulings in similar batch cases

The court primarily applied the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 9, which mandates that for major penalties, the charge memo must include a list of witnesses and documents

It relied on the principle of natural justice, establishing that the author of a relied-upon document must be available for examination and cross-examination

The court followed the precedent set by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7341/2024 and the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 34374/2025, which held that conducting an inquiry without examining the author of forensic reports is a procedural error

Furthermore, it addressed Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof, concluding it does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case in a departmental inquiry

The Tribunal observed that the Respondents’ case rested almost entirely on forensic reports (CFSL/GEQD and Fingerprint analysis). However, the disciplinary authority failed to list or produce the authors of these reports as witnesses

The Tribunal noted that the handwriting reports were "not-so-conclusive," showing both similarities and differences, which necessitated cross-examination to test the expert's findings

Additionally, the applicants raised serious doubts regarding the credentials of the fingerprint examiner, who was allegedly a retired railway staff member rather than a certified expert

Applying the ratio from the Patna High Court's decision in a similar batch of cases, the Tribunal found that the absence of a witness list and the failure to examine the authors of the documents constituted a gross violation of the 1968 Rules and principles of natural justice

The Tribunal rejected the Respondents' argument that experts from Government Departments need not be called for cross-examination, especially when their reports are the sole basis for dismissal

It directed the Respondents to reinstate the applicants within one month

The Tribunal granted the Respondents liberty to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings from the stage of framing the charge memo, which must now include a list of prosecution witnesses (the experts) and a Presenting Officer

The inquiry must be completed within six months

The question of back wages and the option of placing the applicants under suspension during the fresh inquiry were left to the discretion of the Respondents as per service rules