Forensic evidence of impersonation justifies cancellation of candidature where principles of natural justice are duly observed.

The applicant applied for the post of ‘Electrician’ (Code No. NE10(A)) under Advertisement No. DMRC/OM/HR/V/2015

He qualified the written examination on 29.05.2016 and was shortlisted for document verification and medical examination

During the document verification conducted on 14.09.2016, the respondent detected discrepancies between the applicant’s biometric thumb impressions and handwriting samples and those recorded during the written examination

A forensic expert report confirmed that the person who appeared in the examination was not the same individual who presented for verification, suggesting a case of impersonation

The applicant contended that his candidature was cancelled arbitrarily without a written order or a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice

Conversely, the respondent asserted that a show-cause notice was issued on 10.07.2017 following the forensic report dated 29.04.2017, which the applicant failed to contest

Whether the respondent's action in denying appointment to the applicant on the ground of alleged impersonation is legally sustainable and compliant with the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal applied the principle that impersonation is a serious misconduct that vitiates the recruitment process and disentitles a candidate from any claim to appointment

It referenced the principle that while the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in service jurisprudence, and charges need not be proved "beyond reasonable doubt," the decision must be based on the "preponderance of probability" supported by material evidence

the Tribunal relied on the administrative law principle that the requirements of natural justice are met if a party is provided a sufficient opportunity to rebut incriminating evidence, regardless of whether that party chooses to avail of said opportunity

The Tribunal found that the forensic report, which indicated a mismatch in biometrics and handwriting, served as a substantive basis for the allegation of impersonation

While the applicant relied on precedents (e.g., Amarjeet Kumar v. UOI) to argue that a mere expert opinion is insufficient without corroborating evidence, the Tribunal distinguished the present case by noting that the respondent had indeed issued a show-cause notice on 10.07.2017

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to respond to this notice or challenge the underlying forensic report within his pleadings

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the principles of natural justice were not violated because the "opportunity so afforded was not availed by the applicant"

In the absence of any evidence of mala fides or bias, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with a finding that was neither groundless nor unreasonable

It concluded that the applicant was provided an adequate opportunity to rebut the findings of impersonation and failed to do so, thereby satisfying the requirements of fairness and natural justice

The Original Application (O.A. No. 4126/2017) was dismissed