ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways. 2. Applicant is aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2010 passed in O.A. No. 71 of 2009 read with M. A. No. 25 of 2009, by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit court at Ranchi). Learned Tribunal by the impugned order refused to interfere in the order of removal dated 19th July, 2005 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.-2, Senior Divisional Operational Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, and also the memorandum of charges dated 11th February, 2003 and the enquiry report dated 22nd September, 2003 impugned therein. The learned Tribunal did not find any basis to interfere in the appellate order dated 06th November, 2007, whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings was upheld. 3. Applicant was engaged as a casual Hot Weather Staff in Transportation Department of Dhanbad Division as a substitute in the scale of Rs. 750-940/- (RP) against day to day casualties, and vacancies of Group ‘D’ staff. On the basis of a complaint by one Md. Abdul Islam Ansari that the applicant had submitted a fake and false transfer certificate of having studied in High School Bhowra, Dhanbad (Annexure-2) and obtained the appointment, departmental proceedings were initiated on the following charges: “That the said Sri MD. Islam Ansari while functioning as RR Bearer/GMO had submitted a fake and false school certificate (TC) dated 04.07.81 issued by High School Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in RLY. This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part. Thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of RLY services conduct Rules 1966. It reveals from the letter no DSC/MISC/Complain dated 10.07.02 of Sr. DPO/DHN enquiry report dated 06.05.02 of Sri Anup Kumar Welfare Inspector DHN letter no. 23/02 dated 20.03.02 of Head Master High School Bhowra, Dhanbad and School Certificate (TC) dated 01.07.81 submitted by Sri Md. Islam Ansari that Sri Ansari had submitted a fake and false School Certificate dated 04.07.81 issued by Head Master High School, Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in Railway. Islam Ansari that Sri Ansari had submitted a fake and false School Certificate dated 04.07.81 issued by Head Master High School, Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in Railway. This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of RLY Services Conduct Rules 1966.” During departmental enquiry, the charges were found to be proved on the basis of enquiry report of Welfare Inspector, Railways examined as P.W. 1. The enquiry report was submitted on 11.02.2003 (Annexure-5). Petitioner got an opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority found his explanation unsatisfactory and imposed the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 29.07.2005 (Annexure-7). Appellate authority by its order dated 06.11.2007 has confirmed the penalty (Annexure-10). Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the instant O.A. for quashing of the order of penalty and the appellate order as also the memorandum of charges and the enquiry report. Learned Tribunal Considered the submission of the parties and the pleading on record and held as under: “8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant emphasized the point that no opportunity was given to the applicant at the disciplinary enquiry stage to contradict the evidence and the documents produced by the presenting officer. But from the perusal of records as filed by both the applicant himself and by the respondents, it is amply clear that sufficient opportunity at all stages of enquiry have been accorded to the applicant. His appeal has also been considered in detail, and a reasoned and speaking order appears to have been passed. There is merit in the ground of limitation also. 9. In the cases of such disciplinary enquiries, it is not for this Tribunal to place itself in the shoes of the Disciplinary or the Appellate Authority and to either re-appreciate the evidence produced during the Disciplinary Inquiry afresh, or to decide about the quantum of punishment unless grave injustice or procedural irregularity is proved. 10. 9. In the cases of such disciplinary enquiries, it is not for this Tribunal to place itself in the shoes of the Disciplinary or the Appellate Authority and to either re-appreciate the evidence produced during the Disciplinary Inquiry afresh, or to decide about the quantum of punishment unless grave injustice or procedural irregularity is proved. 10. In this case we find that all due processes of law have been followed scrupulously in the Departmental Inquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority on those recommendations, and the orders of the Appellate Authority are all reasoned and speaking orders, which have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the applicant from stage to stage. Therefore, we find no procedural irregularity, illegality or infirmity with the orders passed, or any injustice having been caused to the applicant on procedural grounds. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant to set aside the impugned orders cannot be acceded to and is rejected.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has drawn the attention of the court to Annexure-11 which is a letter dated 22.07.08 issued by the In-charge Headmaster, Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidyalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad. According to him, the name of the school was changed to Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidyalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad w.e.f. 02.10.80 in place of proposed Unch Vidyalaya, Bhowra (Manbhum), Dhanbad in the light of the memo no. 1074 dated 04.09.1959 issued by the Director of Secondary Education. Neither the complainant was examined nor the factum of change in the name of the school was taken note of by the Enquiry Officer while holding the charges proved. Petitioner studied in the said school from 24.01.1979 in Class-IX and left on 31.12.1980. His date of birth recorded in the admission Register was 29.08.1966. The certificate was issued on 04.07.1981 by the Headmaster of High School Bhowra, (Annexure-2). Contents of the transfer certificate have not been proved to be fake as neither the District Education Officer nor the Headmaster of the said school have been examined during the departmental proceeding. On account of the confusion due to change in the name of the school from proposed High School Bhowra, (Manbhum) Dhanbad to Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad, the applicant has been penalised for no reason. On account of the confusion due to change in the name of the school from proposed High School Bhowra, (Manbhum) Dhanbad to Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad, the applicant has been penalised for no reason. No proper opportunity to prove his defence have been accorded during the enquiry proceedings which the learned Tribunal failed to consider. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the Enquiry Officer to proceed afresh after due opportunity to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railways submits by reference to the statement made in the counter-affidavit that on allegations of submitting fake and false school certificate by the petitioner, the matter was enquired through the Welfare Inspector, Railways, Sri Anup Kumar. The Headmaster of Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, stated that there is no such school i.e. High School at Bhowra and no such certificate has been issued from that school in favour of the petitioner. Based on this enquiry, departmental proceedings were initiated under Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and after giving all reasonable opportunities to the charged official and compliance of the natural justice, departmental proceedings were concluded. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad was approached to enquire into the matter who vide letter No. 1356 dated 17.09.2004 (page-81 of the counter-affidavit) stated that after enquiry through the Block Education Extension Officer, Jharia, it was found that there are no such record of issuance of transfer certificate in the school register, as such, the transfer certificate was fake and false. It is submitted that the employee failed to prove that the certificate in question (Annexure-2) has been issued by the competent authority and evidence of his studying in the school during that period. Since the charges were grave in nature and proved during the course of enquiry proceedings, the penalty of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority after giving opportunity to the applicant to represent against the proposed punishment by enclosing the copy of the enquiry report as well. There has been no procedural irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority. It is the case of procuring the appointment on false certificate which has been duly enquired into before passing the order of removal. Therefore the learned Tribunal also rightly refused to interfere in the matter. There has been no procedural irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as upheld by the appellate authority. It is the case of procuring the appointment on false certificate which has been duly enquired into before passing the order of removal. Therefore the learned Tribunal also rightly refused to interfere in the matter. No grounds for interference are made out under the powers of judicial review of this court. The writ petition being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the material pleadings on record. We have also perused the impugned order. In the canvass of the fact based on the pleadings on record (noted above), the sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case is that the name of the school had undergone a change on 02.10.1980 from proposed High School, Bhowra, Dhanbad to Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad which has been the reason for doubting the certificate. Apart from that, it has been argued that non-examination of the complainant and the District Education Officer has prejudiced the case of the delinquent applicant. Therefore, there has been violation of principles of natural justice as well. It however appears from the perusal of the relevant records that Annexure-2, which is the fake certificate alleged to have been issued on 04.07.1981 is after the change of the name of the school to Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad w.e.f. 02.10.1980 with the name ‘High School, Bhowra’, Dhanbad. Annexure-11 dated 22.07.2008 relied by petitioner is said to have been issued by the In-charge Headmaster, Rajkiyakrit Unch Vidayalaya, Bhowra, Dhanbad much after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. Therefore, that argument does not cut much ice. On the other hand, it appears from the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the allegations were enquired into by the employer through the Welfare Inspector, Railways who appeared as a witness during the departmental enquiry proceedings and substantiated the charges that no such certificate was issued from the concerned school. Petitioner got an opportunity to cross-examine him. However, non-examination of the complainant in such a case is not of material relevance, since the allegation of procuring employment on the basis of a fake certificate is to be enquired into and decided upon by the employer himself. Petitioner got an opportunity to cross-examine him. However, non-examination of the complainant in such a case is not of material relevance, since the allegation of procuring employment on the basis of a fake certificate is to be enquired into and decided upon by the employer himself. In any case, the material witness has proved the charge during departmental proceeding. Interference in findings of enquiry proceeding on grounds of insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence is not permissible under the powers of judicial review, if the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have arrived at a considered finding thereupon which cannot be shown to be perverse. It appears further from letter No. 1356 dated 17.09.2004 issued by District Education Officer, Dhanbad brought on record by the respondents, though after conclusion of the departmental proceedings, that the District Education Officer had also through enquiry made by the Block Education Extension Officer, Jharia, found that the school records did not contain any evidence of issuance of such a transfer certificate from the school in question. As such, the transfer certificate was found to be false. 7. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned Tribunal do not suffer from any errors of law or on fact for us to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.