MANDATORY TO PRODUCE AUTHORS OF RELIED-UPON EXPERT REPORTS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

After several years of service and promotions, the respondents issued show-cause notices in 2020 alleging impersonation during the recruitment exam, based on reports from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and Finger Print Examiners

Initially dismissed under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968, the applicants were reinstated following a Tribunal order but were subsequently served with fresh charge sheets under Rule 9

In the ensuing departmental inquiries, the applicants were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the forensic reports, and no prosecution witnesses were produced to prove the documents

Based on the inquiry reports, the applicants were again dismissed from service in early 2023

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to the non-inclusion and non-examination of expert witnesses (authors of CFSL/GEQD reports) in the list of witnesses, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968

2. Whether the reliance on "not-so-conclusive" forensic reports and the testimony of an unverified fingerprint expert could sustain a major penalty of removal from service

3. Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement and a fresh inquiry following the precedent set by the Patna High Court in similar matters

Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which mandates that a major penalty charge memo must include a statement of imputations, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses

The Tribunal relied on the principle of natural justice that the author of a relied-upon document must be produced for cross-examination to prove its contents

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) regarding the relevancy of expert opinions, but clarified that such reports must still be tested via cross-examination in a quasi-judicial proceeding

The Tribunal followed the precedent of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7341/2024, as upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 34374/2025, which held that removal without examining the author of forensic documents is legally unsustainable

The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to include the forensic experts as prosecution witnesses in the charge memo, which is a mandatory requirement under the 1968 Rules

The Tribunal noted that the CFSL/GEQD reports were not "conclusive," as some handwriting samples matched while others did not, making cross-examination essential to resolve the ambiguity

The credentials of the fingerprint expert—a retired railway employee—were successfully challenged by the applicants, necessitating his examination to prove his expertise

The Tribunal found that the inquiry was conducted from a "defective stage" because the charge memo lacked the necessary witnesses to prove the relied-upon forensic evidence

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, noting that the burden of proving the charge of impersonation lay squarely on the department, which failed to produce witnesses to substantiate the "alleged facts"

The respondents were directed to reinstate all applicants within one month, with the question of back wages and consequential benefits to be decided as per rules

The Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry from the stage of framing a revised charge memo, specifically directing them to include the relevant expert witnesses and appoint a Presenting Officer to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice

The inquiry must be completed within six months