28.07.2026 Item No.13 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra WP.CT 156 of 2025 Raj Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav - Versus – Union of India & ors. Mr. Surajit Samanta, Ms. Sohini Samanta, Mr. Roop Shankar Roy ….for the petitioner Mr. Rivu Dutta, Mr. Rameshwar Sinha …for the Union of India The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant, namely, Raj Kumar Yadav (in short, Raj) challenging the order dated 26th June, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/1157/2018. The said OA was preferred primarily praying for the following relief: ‘DIRECTION do issue quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 12.12.2012 being Annexure “A-2” hereto, the Inquiry Report dated 17.12.2013 being Annexure “A-3” hereto, the Final Order dated 10.02.2014 of the Disciplinary Authority being Annexure “A-5” hereto, the Appellate Order dated 18.04.2018 being Annexure “A-9” hereto and thereupon directions do issue upon the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits as if there had been no such departmental proceeding’. Records would reveal that Raj was initially appointed as Khalasi on 22nd January, 1980 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Tower Wagon Driver, Grade-II in the year 1996 and to post of Tower Wagon Driver, Grade-I in the year 1999. In an incident of collision of two Tower Wagons where Raj was one of the drivers, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Challenging the punishment order passed in the said proceeding, Raj preferred an OA being OA 393/2007 which was disposed of by an order dated 2nd December, 2011 quashing the order of punishment. Thereafter, as directed, Raj was reinstated in service. Subsequent thereto, Raj was served a memo dated 10th October, 2012 alleging that he had submitted a forged a School Leaving Certificate (in short, SLC) from Nandalal Institution, Chirkunda, Dhanbad. In the written statement, however, Raj stated that he never read in Nandalal Institution, Chirkunda, Dhanbad and that he had been a student of Rajbansi Devi Uchha Vidya Mandir, Thepaha, Siwan, Bihar. Upon conducting a preliminary enquiry, a chargesheet was thereafter submitted on 12th December, 2012. Challenging the same, Raj preferred another OA being OA no.350/00171/2014 in which initially an order was passed on 17th February, 2014 and the OA was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 6th February, 2018 granting opportunity to Raj to prefer a statutory appeal. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Tribunal, the appellate authority passed an order dated 18th April, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, Raj 2 preferred another OA and the order of dismissal passed in the same has been impugned in the present writ petition. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for Raj strenuously argues that at the time of entry into service, Raj was admittedly a minor and the declaration as regards his date of birth was furnished by his father and that as such, he cannot be held responsible for submission of any document by his father containing discrepant particulars. Drawing our attention to an interim order passed in the earlier OA on 17th February, 2014, Mr. Samanta argues that there was a specific observation of the learned Tribunal to the effect that ‘we also find from the records that the date of birth of the applicant in one of the service documents have been changed from 30.2.1962 to 20.2.1962 by an officer of the respondents which dilutes the allegation of submitting fake certificate with an absurd date of birth’. The said observation was never challenged by the respondents and as such the certificate produced at the time of entry into service cannot be stated to be a forged document by the respondents. Such argument, as urged, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned. 3 He further submits that Raj entered into service way back in the year 1980. The SLC submitted contained a statement that his date of birth was 30th February, 1962. As the said document was allegedly containing an absurd date of birth, the respondents could have challenged the same at the inception. The said issue was sought to be reinvigorated only after the respondents could not successfully defend the earlier disciplinary proceeding. The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the date of birth initially incorporated in the said SLC was rectified to be 20th February, 1962. Drawing our attention to the order passed by the appellate authority, Mr. Samanta contends that the said order is a cryptic one and bereft of appropriate reasons and has been passed in a mechanical manner with an intent to oust Raj from his services. The entire disciplinary proceeding was decided in the absence of original records and as such it cannot be ruled out that Raj was ultimately dismissed on the basis of mere suspicion. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, however, denies and dispute the contention of Mr. Samanta and submits that by a representation dated 5th March, 2018, Raj had categorically stated that he never studied at Nandalal Institution, Dhanbad. Such statement was 4 incorporated in his written statement of defence. Raj’s service records would also reveal that the date of birth was consciously incorporated as 30th February, 1962 and such statement stood certified by Raj putting his signature. In the said conspectus, Raj cannot avoid the rigors of the contents of the said document. In response to the argument of Mr. Samanta that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated belatedly only with the intent to penalize Raj, Mr. Dutta submits that pursuant to the order of the learned Tribunal, Raj was reinstated on 17th March, 2012. At that juncture, particulars as regards the date of birth of Raj were required to be incorporated in the settlement module of PRIME, i.e., Pay Roll and Related Independent Module to make audit and payment of his dues. As Raj’s date of birth in the service record was incorporated 30th February, 1962, the same was not accepted by the Software system and in such circumstances, Raj produced a document to establish that his date of birth in the SLC issued by Nandalal Institution was inadvertently incorporated 30th February, 1962 in place and stead of 20th February, 1962. In the said conspectus, it cannot be urged that the respondents have proceeded against Raj in a vindictive manner and 5 that there had been a substantial delay in issuance of the chargesheet. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, under his own signature Raj declared his date of birth to be 30th February, 1962. In course of the proceeding, however, he specifically put a statement of record that he had never studied in Nandalal Institution. In view thereof, he cannot reinvigorate any claim on the rudiments of a certificate containing an absurd date of birth. In the said conspectus, the respondents have rightly urged that ‘once a fake certificate is submitted, no second chance will be given’. Raj himself upon submission of a statement that he had never studied in Nandalal Institution sought to take a stand that he was a student of Rajbansi Devi Uchha Vidya Mandir, Thepaha, Siwan, Bihar. Surprisingly, the SLC issued by the Nandalal Institution states that Raj had left the school while studying in class VIII on 3rd February, 1979 whereas the SLC issued by Rajbansi Devi Uchha Vidya Mandir, Thepaha, Siwan, Bihar states that Raj left the school on 3rd February, 1979 while studying in class X. 6 It is well settled that in exercise of judicial review, this Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct was arrived at in course of disciplinary enquiry. Interference is warranted only in cases where there had been blatant violation of the rules of natural justice or if the finding of misconduct is based on no evidence or if the finding of the disciplinary proceeding suffers from perversity. Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the case we are unable to grant the relief as prayed for by Raj. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any infirmity in the same. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 7