S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 27.11.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 051/00039/2015 whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the termination order as also the appellate order, has been dismissed. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent to reinstate him to his original post with full backwages and all consequential benefits and for other benefits to which he is entitled for after setting aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the appellate order dated 04.06.2013 affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement was floated by the respondent no. 1 in the month of June, 2007 for recruitment on the post of M.E. Operator/ H.V. Driver. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the said post and Admit Card was duly issued to him. The petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 04.09.2007 and after being selected and fulfilling all the requisite criteria and conditions, he was appointed to the said post in the pay scale of Rs.4170 6095/-. The petitioner, thereafter, joined in the said post on 17.09.2007. Since the date of his appointment, his work was appreciated by all and there was no complaint whatsoever. Later on, after a series of complaint against these appointments, the Vigilance Department started investigation in which petitioner also had to appear. The petitioner candidly submitted that he appeared in the written examination for which Admit Card was issued to him and he put his signature on the answer book and on being found successful, he was selected for the post for which he joined. However, on receiving complaints, the respondents tallied signature of the petitioner on the joining report vis-à-vis signature on the answer sheet, counter foil and thereafter reached to the conclusion that both the signature i.e. on joining report as also on the answer sheet, do not match, thereby creating a doubt about his appearance in the written examination and inference was drawn that his signatures do not match, thereby creating doubt about his appearance in the written examination and, accordingly, vigilance started investigation on the complaint and the petitioner was called for and his statement including his sample signatures were collected for investigation On the direction of the Vigilance Department, the petitioner gave ten sample signatures. During enquiry, the Vigilance Department tallied signature of the petitioner on his joining report vis-à-vis sample signature given to the Vigilance Department and further verified the same from the government examiner of questioned documents, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Director of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata-14, which on examining the sample signatures, gave a reasoned opinion that the person who had given sample signatures to the Vigilance Department and the person who had signed the joining report, did not write the signature on the answer sheet counter foil. Meaning thereby, the signature before the Vigilance Department and the signature in the answer sheet did not tally at all as per the opinion of the experts.;