JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition by Ram Singh, son of Late Phool Singh, questions the legality of the punishment order dated 29.9.1987 Annexure-11-A as communicated through the letter of the same date (Annexure-11) as also the appellate order dated 17.11.1987 intimated through the letter dated 1.1.1988 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by time. 2. The petitioner has been punished on the charge that his real name was Gyan Singh and that in order to obtain employment as a constable in the Railway Protection Force, he impersonated himself as Ram Singh and utilized the educational Certificates and other documents of his elder brother Ram Singh surreptitiously, who was employed in the Army. This charge of deploying the documents of his elder brother for obtaining employment in the fake and impersonated name of Ram Singh was brought home by the respondents after holding an inquiry and ultimately the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred an Appeal which was promptly rejected as time barred without entertaining the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits. 3. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Railway Protection Force Act read with Railway Protection Force Rules 1959. He entered into service on 4.4.1965 at the age of 20 years. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on a complaint made by one Shivpal Singh, who is a resident of the same village and is alleged to be on inimical terms with the petitioner’s family. This complaint emanated after almost 20 years of service by the petitioner in the year 1986. 4. On receipt of this complaint, the respondent - authority instituted a preliminary inquiry and one Hari Vilas Dubey, an Officer of the Railway Protection Force proceeded to hold the preliminary inquiry. The inquiry by Mr. Dubey was made after allegedly obtaining the statements of the complainant, one Ved Singh who is alleged to be the real uncle of the complainant and Hem Singh, the elder brother of the petitioner. The inquiry by Mr. Dubey was made after allegedly obtaining the statements of the complainant, one Ved Singh who is alleged to be the real uncle of the complainant and Hem Singh, the elder brother of the petitioner. The report of the preliminary inquiry is Annexure-1 to the writ petition in which it is alleged that on the material collected it was necessary to hold a detailed inquiry as the petitioner appears to have obtained the employment by utilising the documents of Ram Singh son of Phool Singh who was employed in the Army as a Soldier of the Rajput Regiment stationed at Fatehgarh. The said preliminary inquiry report also indicates that some oral information was also provided by the Rajput Regiment Centre. Accordingly, the Officer recommended that in view of the information received, the petitioner Ram Singh, who was posted as a cash guard at Izzat Nagar deserves to be subjected to an inquiry. 5. Thus, after 20 years of service of the petitioner, this issue was raised at the instance of the complainant Shivpal Singh and his associates and upon an alleged oral information tendered by the Rajput Regiment Centre, the disciplinary inquiry proceeded and the Enquiry Officer called upon the witnesses for being examined with opportunity to the petitioner. 6. On the first issue relating to the complaint made by Shivpal Singh as to why he chose to do so after 20 years of the services of the petitioner, the complainant Shivpal Singh did not offer any plausible explanation. However, the story rolled on like a cine - script with a double roll allotted to the petitioner and his parentage. The statements of Ved Singh, Hem Sing and other witnesses were recorded. 7. The petitioner set up a defence that he is in reality Ram Singh, S/o Phool Singh R/o Village Nagla Param, Post Office Dhatigara, Police Station Aliganj, District - Etah. He has four brothers. He also set up a defence that there is another Ram Singh, a person of the same name and also having the same parentage of Phool Singh. This Phool Singh had migrated to the petitioner’s village from one village Maudhe, District - Farrukhabad. The name of the petitioner’s grand father was Randhir whereas the name of the grand father of the other Ram Singh is Shiv Ratan. This Phool Singh had migrated to the petitioner’s village from one village Maudhe, District - Farrukhabad. The name of the petitioner’s grand father was Randhir whereas the name of the grand father of the other Ram Singh is Shiv Ratan. Thus, there were 2 persons by the name of Phool Singh namely the petitioner’s father whose father’s name was Randhir and the second was Phool Singh, son of Shiv Ratan. It was just a matter of coincidence that the petitioner’s name and his father’s name was one and the same as that of Ram Singh who was serving in the Army. This case had been set up in defence and the petitioner also got Phool Singh, son of Shiv Ratan, examined whose statement was also recorded. 8. So far as the respondents’ version is concerned, they rely on the statement of the complainant Shivpal, Ved Singh and the information received from the Rajput Regiment Centre. The petitioner had raised a plea that the soldier by the name of Ram Singh, who is stated to have been discharged in the Army in 1982 and was receiving pension, his pension papers should be produced which would contain the photograph of that Ram Singh so as to establish his identity. The petitioner also stated, that it was that Ram Singh who went on to serve as a private guard after leaving the Army in M/s Lohiya Machine Tools and was an altogether different person. The petitioner therefore led evidence by producing the father of that Ram Singh and getting his statement recorded to fix the identity of Ram Singh, who was alleged to be a soldier in the Army and whose papers were alleged to have been utilized by the petitioner. It may be noted that there is nothing either in the inquiry proceeding or in the order of punishment to indicate the production of pension papers and the identity documents including the photograph of Ram Singh, who was stated to be a pensioner from the Army. 9. After having assessed the statements, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in reality the fourth son of Late Phool Singh S/o Randhir Singh and his actual name was Gyan Singh, who utilized the document of Ram Singh and impersonated to obtain employment in the Railway Protection Force. 9. After having assessed the statements, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in reality the fourth son of Late Phool Singh S/o Randhir Singh and his actual name was Gyan Singh, who utilized the document of Ram Singh and impersonated to obtain employment in the Railway Protection Force. As noted above, the Appeal filed was dismissed as time barred hence this petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents to which a reply has been filed by the petitioner. The counter-affidavit has filed documents to indicate that the petitioner had got examined another Shivpal Singh as a complainant and after the real complainant was produced, it was established that the petitioner had in effect tried to mislead the Enquiry Officer. 10. This Court in order to sort out the various issues raised, including the question of the date of birth of the petitioner, his identify and the related documents that were introduced during the inquiry, passed an order for production of the original records on 22.7.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Lalji Sinha sought time on 2 occasions and a last opportunity was given to him to produce the record vide order dated 12.10.2009. Sri Sinha failed to produce the original records and filed an Affidavit alongwith an application dated 16.11.2009 sworn by S.K. Sarkar, Assistant Security Commissioner, R.P.F., stating therein as follows: “3. That in response to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 12.10.2009 the deponent under his supervision got the entire office of Railway Protection Force, Izzatnagar, searched out to trace out the record of the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner Ram Singh but the record of the disciplinary proceeding of the petitioner could not be traced out. 4. That the dealer of the case Sri C.P. Gupta who retired from service on 30.6.2009 and did not hand over the record to the office before his retirement. 5. That C.P. Gupta retired from service on 30.6.2009 and this distance of time no other person can be held responsible for the loss of the file.” 11. The aforesaid conduct of the respondents cannot be appreciated and the negligence on their part has, therefore, to be met with penalty. This aspect will, however, be dealt with later on. 12. 5. That C.P. Gupta retired from service on 30.6.2009 and this distance of time no other person can be held responsible for the loss of the file.” 11. The aforesaid conduct of the respondents cannot be appreciated and the negligence on their part has, therefore, to be met with penalty. This aspect will, however, be dealt with later on. 12. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has very deftly and precisely taken the Court through every minute details including the statement of the witnesses and the documents relied upon by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. He submits that the evidence which was led by the department clearly establishes that the oral evidence was not worth believing and the information received from the Rajput Regiment Centre or from M/s Lohiya Machine Tools was unsubstantiated by relevant material so as to believe them. He, therefore, submits that both the oral and the documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution is bereft of any credit and has not been established to have probative value. He submits that the issues raised by the petitioner in relation to his date of birth and the date of birth of the alleged Ram Singh also did not find mention nor was it noticed. A specific ground taken in the memo of appeal to that effect could not receive attention as the Appeal itself was dismissed as being barred by time. He submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7.5.1945 and in case the document of Ram Singh as relied upon by the opposite party is believed, then his date of birth being 25.2.1945 clearly demolishes the case of the prosecution. He submits that if the petitioner is taken to be the younger brother of Ram Singh then the difference in the age of petitioner who is being described as Gyan Singh with that of Ram Singh would be only 12 days which is impossible. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses and has urged that the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses and has urged that the conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. He submits that this is not a case where the disciplinary authority could have assessed and appreciated the evidence to arrive at any conclusion against the petitioner and there cannot be a second opinion about the perfect defence of the petitioner. 13. Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the entire inquiry was conducted fairly, and with the help of the counter-affidavit, he submits that the petitioner in reality is Gyan Singh, the younger brother of Ram Singh, who impersonated himself and utilized the documents of his elder brother to obtain employment hence the removal order is perfectly justified. On the question of the dismissal of the Appeal as being time barred, Sri Lalji Singh contends that under Chapter-XVI of the Regulations of the Railway Protection Force 1966, the appeal was barred by time as it was beyond a period of one month. It is this information which was sent to the petitioner as his appeal had been received after the expiry of the said period. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the issue relating to appeal may be disposed of first. The order was passed on 29.9.1987 and the appeal was moved by the petitioner on 11.11.1987 which was within 45 days but beyond 30 days. The petitioner has taken a specific plea in paragraph No. 40 that the appeal became time barred on account of an incorrect legal advice being tendered about the period of limitation and as a matter of fact, the appellate order which is referred to in the communication dated 1.1.1988 has not been served on the petitioner till date. Sri Agrawal, therefore, submits that even otherwise it is not the communication of the order in appeal but the appellate order itself that would allow the period of limitation to run. 15. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced, it is evident that the petitioner’s appeal was not beyond reach to the extent of being rejected without applying mind even if there was a few days delay. The petitioner had a plausible explanation and it is not that he was not diligent. 15. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced, it is evident that the petitioner’s appeal was not beyond reach to the extent of being rejected without applying mind even if there was a few days delay. The petitioner had a plausible explanation and it is not that he was not diligent. The petitioner is a constable and with the serious nature of punishment having been awarded, he ought to have been given a hearing in appeal instead of dismissing the appeal being barred by time. It is well known that the procedure is the handmade of justice and not a tool of injustice. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected unceremoniously in my opinion for not a valid reason, but on a mere technicality which ought to have been entertained. The communication as well as the appellate order, therefore, are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 16. Coming to the merits of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to discuss the statement of the witnesses, who were examined during the inquiry. 17. Sri Shivpal Singh is the complainant and he belongs to the same village as the petitioner. His complaint was made the basis of the inquiry. That too even after 20 years of service. His statement, which was recorded during the inquiry is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He admitted the complaint having been moved by him and he reiterated that the petitioner is Gya Singh and not Ram Singh. It was alleged that he impersonated to utilize the certificates of his brother Ram Singh and, accordingly, entered into service. He described the parentage of the petitioner’s father Phool Singh as Randhir Singh. Phool Singh S/o Randhir Singh died a couple of years ago i.e. before the filing of the complaint. The second son of the said Phool Singh is Ram Singh, who served in 15th Rajpoot Regiment Centre, Fatehgarh, and after receiving pension, he is working with M/s Lohiya Machine Tools as a guard. It was alleged that the petitioner is Gya Singh, who is the third son of Late Phool Singh. He further stated that he never knew about this manipulation of the petitioner and it is only about one year ago that he came to know that the petitioner was working as a imposter where after he filed the complaint. It was alleged that the petitioner is Gya Singh, who is the third son of Late Phool Singh. He further stated that he never knew about this manipulation of the petitioner and it is only about one year ago that he came to know that the petitioner was working as a imposter where after he filed the complaint. The complaint admitted his enmity with the petitioner’s family and the litigation civil and criminal between them. He further stated that Ved Singh, had been earlier produced at the time of preliminary inquiry who did not make a statement but his version was transcribed on a piece of paper by his nephew Amar Singh, which was signed by Ved Singh. On a specific question being raised during the examination in Chief, he said that Ved Singh had signed on his statement given earlier without reading or understanding the same. On another question about the date of birth of Ram Singh (petitioner) and the other Ram Singh who was working in the Military, he replied that he does not know their dates of birth. A further query was made as to how he received the information, he said that he came to know from his own source. On being questioned that this information may be false, he admitted in reply No. 11 that the complaint made by him may also be false. He also denied having any knowledge as to when the petitioner or the real Ram Singh entered into service. On further being cross-examined as to whether he had any further oral or documentary evidence to lead, he said that he had no other evidence available with him. 18. The aforesaid statements, in my opinion, are full of vagueness about the identity of Ram Singh inasmuch as neither the date of birth was disclosed nor any further information was given in spite of the fact that the complainant is a resident of the same village and claims acquaintance for almost half a century. He has further admitted the fact that Ved Singh had earlier simply signed his statement which had been transcribed by his own nephew. The enmity with the family has also been admitted. 19. He has further admitted the fact that Ved Singh had earlier simply signed his statement which had been transcribed by his own nephew. The enmity with the family has also been admitted. 19. The second witness introduced by the respondents was Ved Singh, who in his oral statement recorded before the Enquiry Officer, admitted that the statement at the stage of preliminary inquiry was not given by him and it was on account of a family dispute that the said statement was transcribed by my nephew under the influence of Mr. Shivpal Singh, the complainant. He also admitted that there were 2 persons by the name of Phool Singh in his village and one of them is still alive whereas the petitioner’s father is dead. He also admitted while answering to this question that Phool Singh, who is alive had 3 sons and the name of his second son is Ram Singh. He also admitted that Ram Singh S/o Phool Singh, who was alive worked in the Army but he has not been coming to the village for the past 2 - 3 years. In another important query as to whether any person by the name of Gyan Singh was living in the village, he flatly denied any person of that name being available in the village. The aforesaid statement of Ved Singh, therefore, contradicts his earlier stand and he also admitted the existence of another Phool Singh, who is not the father of the petitioner and whose son also has the same name of Ram Singh and is working in the Army. 20. The third relevant statement is that of Hem Singh, the elder brother of the petitioner, who has clearly explained the stand of the defence indicating that one of his brother is Ram Singh, who is the petitioner and he never worked in the Army. 21. The most important testimony is of Phool Singh, S/o Shiv Ratan Singh, who was alive and stated that he has 3 sons and his second son Ram Singh was employed in the Army and was placed in the Rajput Regiment at Fatehgarh from where he took pension in 1982. He also stated that the name of the petitioner’s father was also Phool Singh, who died a couple of years ago and that the third son of Late Phool Singh, Gya Singh is working in a Fertilizer shop at Aliganj. He also stated that the name of the petitioner’s father was also Phool Singh, who died a couple of years ago and that the third son of Late Phool Singh, Gya Singh is working in a Fertilizer shop at Aliganj. This witness was an independent witness and he explained his status in support of the defence set up by the petitioner. It is, however, to be noticed that this Phool Singh was examined by the prosecution. 22. The disciplinary authority while proceeding to award the punishment has completely over looked the said statement of Phool Singh, S/o Shiv Ratan Singh. 23. The main defence of the petitioner was that he is Ram Singh, who is a different person and that the Ram Singh, who was working in the Army, is the son of Phool Singh S/o Shiv Ratan Singh. Secondly, the petitioner has also requested the authorities to produce the pension papers of Ram Singh as they had themselves made an inquiry from the Rajput Regiment Centre. The petitioner had, therefore, requested the respondents to produce the pension documents which would indicate the photograph of the reality of Ram Singh S/o Phool Singh and grand son of Shiv Ratan Singh. The prosecution failed to do so and, therefore, they did not produce the best evidence that could have been relied upon for the purposes of identifying the said Ram Singh, who was working in the Army. The statement of the witnesses as indicated above, were self contradictory which has also not been noticed by the disciplinary authority. 24. Apart from this, the petitioner had also set up a version with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner and the alleged date of birth of the disputed Ram Singh. It is to be noted that if the petitioner in reality was Gyan Singh and the younger brother of Ram Singh, he could not have been just 12 days younger to his elder brother. It is, therefore, evident that the disciplinary authority without applying his mind to the entire set of evidence and without even assessing the statement of all the witnesses has recorded his conclusions on the one sided version of the complainant and the prosecution. This procedure, in my opinion, is absolutely perverse and vitiates the impugned order of removal. 25. It is, therefore, evident that the disciplinary authority without applying his mind to the entire set of evidence and without even assessing the statement of all the witnesses has recorded his conclusions on the one sided version of the complainant and the prosecution. This procedure, in my opinion, is absolutely perverse and vitiates the impugned order of removal. 25. The potential witnesses have either grossly wavered or have drifted in and out who were being heavily relied on by the department. Their impredictable human behaviour was a demeanour that is transparently reflected in the statements of the complainant Shivpal Singh and his associate Ved Singh. 26. On the other hand, the witness Phool Singh S/o Shiv Ratan went on to state a bald truth which for the prosecution was a home truth. He was not economical in his disclosure and fluently narrated his family status including that about his son Ram Singh who was employed in the army and was currently living in Farrukhabad. His testimony was almost unquestionable and there is no cross-examination to dislodge the same. This highly probable honest affirmation has been discarded for no plausible or cogent reason. The authority does not say as to why such a statement is not trustworthy. As against this a fickle and unreliable oral statement of the complainant and Ved Singh was made the basis of the enquiry report. 27. Having concluded so, the only option left to set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.9.1987 as communicated through Annexure-11 and contained in Annexure-11-A is quashed. The appellate order as communicated through the letter dated 1.1.1988 is also set aside for the reasons recorded herein above. 28. The next question is about the relief to be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner served the Railway Protection Force for 20 years and he was at the fag end of his service when the instant writ petition was filed in the year 1988. The petitioner, whose date of birth is disclosed as 1945, must be about 65 years of age by now and, therefore, there is no occasion to reinstate him in service. However, keeping in view the fact that his service period was curtailed for a substantially long time, the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the wages as he has admittedly not worked after his removal. However, keeping in view the fact that his service period was curtailed for a substantially long time, the petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the wages as he has admittedly not worked after his removal. The respondents have also not filed any evidence to indicate that the petitioner was gainfully employed after his removal. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to receive only 50% of the wages for the period he was prevented from discharging his duties after his removal. The petitioner would also be entitled to his consequential benefits treating him to have retired from service. 29. The issue now left is with regard to the serious negligence on the part of the respondents to have misplaced the records in relation to the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings and which were not produced in spite of specific directions of this Court. The aforesaid conduct of the respondents has to be viewed seriously as it has caused an obstruction in the proceedings and the hearing of this matter. The matter was adjourned on at least 4 occasions for the production of the records. This has also caused harassment to the petitioner and delay in legal proceedings. The best evidence which could have been assessed by the Court has been lost by the respondents on account of their negligent book-keeping. 30. The aforesaid fact is now admitted in the Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner cannot be blamed for this as he had already been removed from service in 1988 and there is no chance or even indication of his remote involvement in the misplacement of such records. Keeping an over all view on the aforesaid facts, the Court finds this to be a fit case to impose costs on the respondents. Accordingly, the cost is assessed at Rs. 20,000/- to be paid over to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released all benefits arising out of this judgment within three months by the competent authority. 31. The Court could have remanded the matter for an assessment of the evidence as neglected by the Disciplinary Authority and noted herein above, but the loss of records by the act of the respondents is a reason to decline to do so. The enquiry or the proceedings cannot in the absence of original records proceed effectively. 31. The Court could have remanded the matter for an assessment of the evidence as neglected by the Disciplinary Authority and noted herein above, but the loss of records by the act of the respondents is a reason to decline to do so. The enquiry or the proceedings cannot in the absence of original records proceed effectively. The attitude of the appellate authority in cursorily casting aside the appeal and the advanced age of the petitioner are additional reasons for the same. 32. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs assessed herein above. ————