JUDGMENT : DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by the instant writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 and 27.01.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 and 2 (Annexure Nos. 20 and 23). 3. The petitioner having graduate degree is eligible for the post of clerical staff. Pursuant to the notification, he has submitted Online Application form for selection in State Bank of India. The petitioner was issued an admit card bearing Roll No. 2201047741 with Registration No. 4136762 for appearing in the written examination scheduled to be held on 15.11.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared in the written examination on 15.11.2009 at Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir Post Graduate College, Anand Bag, Kanpur. The said examination was conduced in the presence of two invigilators including Bank invigilator. At the time of examination, the invigilators have matched the physical presence of the petitioner by verification of photographs, signatures and thumb impressions and after being fully satisfied, permitted the petitioner to appear and participate in the written examination. Accordingly, the petitioner passed the aforesaid written examination and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for interview which was scheduled to be held on 27.04.2010. The interview Board has verified the required documents in the presence of petitioner and after full satisfaction of the Bank Officials, interview has been conducted and final results were declared on 16.12.2010 in which the petitioner was declared as selected and the petitioner joined the said post of Assistant in S.B.I. Industrial Area Branch Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar on 16.12.2010. He discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of authorities and basing on his performance, the authorities have recommended for confirmation on the post vide order dated 21.03.2012. Accordingly, his services were confirmed vide order dated 24.03.2012. 4. Under the misconception of facts, the third respondent had issued a charge memo on 03.09.2015, which reads as under: 5. Against the said charge, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.09.2015 whereas the respondents were not satisfied with the explanation, therefore, the respondents conducted an enquiry and based on the report of incompetent hand writing expert Sri R. Krishna, declared charges to be proved against the petitioner. Against the said charge, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.09.2015 whereas the respondents were not satisfied with the explanation, therefore, the respondents conducted an enquiry and based on the report of incompetent hand writing expert Sri R. Krishna, declared charges to be proved against the petitioner. Based on the said inquiry report, the third respondent without application of mind passed an order on 04.05.2016 by dismissing the petitioner from service, as against the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 4 bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the Appellate Authority with prayer to set aside the punishment order. The appeal was rejected by the fourth respondent vide order dated 12.08.2016 in routine manner. 6. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016 (Rabindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) and after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2018 with the following direction, which reads as under: 7. Despite the above directions, the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner into service nor paid the salaries. Hence the petitioner has pressed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3685 of 2018. This Court issued notice to the respondent on 03.08.2018. Thereafter, this Court further passed an order on 30.12.2018 regarding quantum of sentence. Based on the order of this Court, passed in the contempt application, the petitioner was reinstated at Salempur Main Branch, State Bank of India, Deoria vide order dated 30.08.2018. 8. Again respondent no. 3 by order dated 01.10.2018 placed the petitioner under suspension and appointed one Sri Ritesh Sagar as Inquiry Officer, directing the petitioner to participate in the inquiry. Thereafter, the Regional Manager S.B.I. Gorakhpur had issued letter on 05.04.2021 annexing the inquiry report dated 21.07.2021 prepared by the Inquiry Officer and Assistant General Manager. To the said inquiry report, the petitioner has submitted his objections before the Assistant General Manager, S.B.I. Gorakhur through registered post dated 12.04.2021 and without considering the objections filed by the petitioner, a tentative punishment order was issued on 13.09.2021 by asking the petitioner to appear on 20.09.2021. Again the petitioner submitted his objection on 16.10.2021 and without taking into consideration, the respondent no. 1 has passed the impugned punishment order on 29.11.2021, dismissing the petitioner from service. 9. Again the petitioner submitted his objection on 16.10.2021 and without taking into consideration, the respondent no. 1 has passed the impugned punishment order on 29.11.2021, dismissing the petitioner from service. 9. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent by bringing the facts and also raising several grounds prayed for setting aside the tentative and final orders and reinstate the petitioner into service but without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, the appeal has been rejected in mechanical manner. 10. Assailing the same order, the present writ petition has been filed. 11. After notice, one Sri Sunil Kumar Maharaj, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Salempur Branch, District Deoria has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents wherein he has stated that as per 11th Bipartite Settlement dated 11.11.2020, the employee who has been awarded the punishment of dismissal, compulsory discharge or removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority and subsequently where the punishment is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, shall be given an opportunity to seek reconsideration by an authority higher than the Appellate Authority. Therefore, after rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner could have availed an alternative remedy for reconsideration before the competent authority of the Bank rather than filing the instant petition, hence the same should be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner. Further, as per the Bipartite Settlement between the State Bank of India and Employees’ Union as such the petitioner is a “workman” within the definition of workman as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioner’s dismissal is deemed to be an Industrial Dispute within the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even on this ground, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 12. The petitioner appeared in the written examination by impersonation, when the same was verified then it was found that the thumb impression of the person who appeared in the written examination on 15.11.2009 at Jwala Devi Vdya Mandir Post Graduate College, Anand Bagh, Kanpur and the person who joined the Bank on 15.12.2010, are different. Photograph available on call letter at the time of appearing for written examination was also not matching as such he was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Photograph available on call letter at the time of appearing for written examination was also not matching as such he was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On the basis of material evidence on record, the respondents have held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and it has been found that signature and thumb impression of the person who appeared in the written examination on 15.11.2009 and the person who joined in the Bank on 15.12.2010 are different. In fact, the petitioner was given an opportunity by Inquiry Officer to cross examine the handwriting expert but he refused to do so, inasmuch as the Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that the report submitted by Sri R. Krishna, on the basis of evidence and facts, cannot be sidelined on the basis of non-government and non registered entity. Neither the inquiry conducted is vitiated nor it is illegal inasmuch as after scrutinizing the entire material on record as well as after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the orders have been passed by the respondents. As the petitioner has played fraud upon the Bank in getting the appointment by falsification/impersonation, service of the petitioner has rightly been terminated after holding proper inquiry and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner. There is no violation of principles of natural justice or any procedure contemplated under Rules. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Based on the above pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasise his arguments that the respondents have issued charge sheet for extraneous considerations as the petitioner has appeared to the written examination conducted by the respondents and at the time of written examination, two invigilators are present and they have verified the petitioner and also taken photographs, thumb impressions and signature. Accordingly, on the basis of the result, the petitioner was selected and appointed and based on his performance in the duties, the petitioner has been awarded best employee awards for continuous three years. 14. Though the above charges have been framed but no proper inquiry has been conducted by the respondents before giving punishment order. The same was taken into consideration by this Court in Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016. 14. Though the above charges have been framed but no proper inquiry has been conducted by the respondents before giving punishment order. The same was taken into consideration by this Court in Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by making a remark that there was no photograph mixing though it may not have been possible in the invisilative/examination centre itself and nothing of kind was done and the inquiry report was entirely based on the report of R. Krishna, the handwriting expert who was not even a registered handwriting expert and further it has been noted that Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have also not considered the various aspects of the matter and recorded the gross infraction of principles of natural justice and accordingly the impugned orders were set aside but liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh after giving him an opportunity of examination and cross-examination of Sri R. Krishna during the inquiry who may lead whatever evidence he wanted to produce regarding report of the handwriting expert. 15. Based on the above observations for conducting a re-inquiry the respondents have issued notice and directed the petitioner to cross-examine Sri R. Krishna. When the petitioner denied the opportunity and took specific stand that the said R. Krishna is not a registered handwriting expert nor is attached to any government pharmaceutical laboratory nor he possess any technical degree to qualify him as handwriting expert but before considering the said objection taken by the petitioner, the respondents proceeded only on the ground that this Court has given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the R. Krishna during the inquiry. When the petitioner has taken specific stand regarding incompetence of the handwriting expert, inquiry Officer has submitted his report with the following observation: 16. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 12.04.2021, which reads as follows: 17. When the petitioner has taken specific stand regarding incompetence of the handwriting expert, inquiry Officer has submitted his report with the following observation: 16. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 12.04.2021, which reads as follows: 17. Surprisingly without considering the specific objection taken by the petitioner, the respondents have passed the tentative punishment order on 13.09.2021 by giving an opportunity once again and the same orders have been confirmed and final order has been issued by the respondent vide order dated 29.11.2021, which reads as follows: “FINAL ORDER STAFF: AWARD DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NON VIGILANCE-GROSS MISCONDUCT SHRI RABINDRA KUMAR, ASSOCIATE (U/S) (PF No. 6599540) BRANCH: SALEMPUR (CODE-01146) PERSONIFIED HIMSELF BY SOMEONE ELSE (as solver) WHILE APPEARING IN WRITTEN EXMINATION 18. As against the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent wherein he has taken specific grounds that inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 27.01.2021 has not himself examined any documents and material and without any basis as well as without recording any independent finding held charge to be proved against the petitioner herein and submitted his report solely based on the opinion of the handwriting expert Sri R. Krishna which is unsustainable. Further, Sri R. Krishna cannot be said to be a handwriting expert as he is simply B.Sc., LLB, MA (Criminology and Forensic Science) and he was not appointed an Assistant Professor, Criminology and Forensic Science in Sagar University, Madhya Pradesh. 19. The said R. Krishna has never been recognized and appointed as handwriting expert in any government forensic labs or institutions. Hence the alleged handwriting expert report is not a conclusive written and the same cannot be made as basis to dismiss the appeal. 20. It was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to call the two invigilators who were present at the time of examination and summoning the original attendance register, call letter, admit card and the documents which were prepared at the time of interview containing signatures, photographs of the appellant to compare the same in presence of the appellant which was not followed by the inquiry officer. Even it is an obligation on the part of the Bank to summon all interview board members and the original registers containing the signature and thumb impressions obtained during the interview for verification. 21. Even it is an obligation on the part of the Bank to summon all interview board members and the original registers containing the signature and thumb impressions obtained during the interview for verification. 21. In fact, the appellant had appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 03.11.2021 before the Disciplinary Authority and pressed the facts and also requested to consider his representation dated 16.10.2021. He has also raised specific ground that the Inquiry Officer has not made any inquiry or recorded any independent findings against the charges except relying on the report of alleged handwriting expert of Sri R. Krishna and the appeal has been dismissed by the second respondent vide order dated 27.01.2022 with the following observations, which reads as follows: 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on perusal of the entire inquiry report, it clearly shows that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted any independent inquiry with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner except relying on the report submitted by Sri R. Krishna in which he has stated that enough opportunity has been provided to the CSE to re-examine the Sri R. Krishna which he has refused to cross-examine the R. Krishna report and certificate has been submitted that legality of petitioner is doubtful, therefore, the Bank may take against him as it may deem fit. Based on the above inquiry report without application of mind the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order stating that after examining the matter carefully, going through the case and taking consideration of the gravity of lapses, the dismissal order was passed against the petitioner. Even the Appellate Authority has not at all considered the facts and also ground raised by the petitioner and simply extracted the entire appeal in the impugned order and dismissed appeal accordingly. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have not applied their mind while deciding the issue. The petitioner has taken specific objection with regard to the appointment of Sri R. Krishna as handwriting expert as he has not a qualified or government handwriting expert. However, he has not having any specific qualifications for handwriting expert. So report which was submitted cannot be taken into consideration. No specific averments or assertions made either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard. However, he has not having any specific qualifications for handwriting expert. So report which was submitted cannot be taken into consideration. No specific averments or assertions made either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard. Hence, on this ground, alone the punishment order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has to go. Further, the learned counsel emphasised his arguments that while dealing with the matter of such nature, it is incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to call for the entire record pertaining to examination centre, interview Board’s record and finally to send both documents to the forensic laboratory to get a clear report but in the instant case no such procedure has been followed by the Inquiry Officer. Further he has not taken any care to call for the record pertaining to examination centre records as well as interview Board’s record. 24. Despite the petitioner has made a specific request to look into those aspects before taking into consideration of the report submitted by Sri R. Krishna, who is an ineligible person but surprisingly Inquiry Officer has submitted inquiry report solely based on the report submitted by the handwriting expert Sri R. Krishna and Disciplinary Authority has also taken into consideration of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and passed the impugned order. 25. Perusal of both the orders Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, it appears that they have not even cared to refer the objections raised by the petitioner and no finding has been given to that effect. Surprisingly, the Appellate Authority also has not given any reasons except stating that record has been perused. 26. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh vs. Union of India, 2018 (4) AWC 3581 , particularly Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, which reads thus: 27. Further, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ (A) No. 21096 of 2018 (Vijay Pal and Others vs. Union of India and Others). Paragraph 9, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 and 34, which reads as under: 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the above said matters, the issue is identical to that of issue involved in the present writ petition. 29. Paragraph 9, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33 and 34, which reads as under: 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the above said matters, the issue is identical to that of issue involved in the present writ petition. 29. Even in the above said matters, the respondents have not been able to establish the allegations of impersonation against the petitioner and based on the opinion of an expert, punishment order was passed against the petitioner which was set aside only on the ground that opinion of the handwriting expert was required to have been viewed and considered along with other materials available on record. Unless it is supported by any other material or evidence, that the petitioner has not been appeared in the examination, only based on the opinion of expert, he cannot be dismissed from service as reasonable opportunity has to be given to the delinquent and accordingly, the impugned orders are contrary to procedure. 30. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner cannot take such plea in the present petition as the respondents have implemented the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016, wherein liberty has been granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh after giving him an opportunity of examination and cross-examination of Sri R. Krishna during the inquiry and lead whatever evidence he may want to contradict the report of handwriting expert Sri R. Krishna. The said directions have became final and as per orders passed by this Court, respondents have given several opportunities to the petitioner to cross-examine the said R. Krishna. 31. Despite giving opportunity on several occasion i.e. 13.01.2020, 27.07.2020 and 27.01.2021, petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine Sri R. Krishna, left with no option the inquiry Officer has submitted his report. Hence, the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 27.01.2021 was in accordance with directions issued by this court in Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot take contrary stand and raised objection with regard to the handwriting expert of Sri R. Krishna. The said ground is not available to the petitioner in view of the direction issued by this Court in the above said writ petition. 32. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot take contrary stand and raised objection with regard to the handwriting expert of Sri R. Krishna. The said ground is not available to the petitioner in view of the direction issued by this Court in the above said writ petition. 32. Further, the respondents have considered the entire documents while passing the final orders and as per the observations made in the final order, it clearly discloses that before passing the orders, the respondents have verified the entire records which includes both records pertaining to the examination centre as well as interview Board. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and has taken the each and every ground for consideration and after verifying the documents, the Appellate Authority has also came to the conclusion that there are no ground raised by the petitioner, hence the same has been dismissed. 33. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere in this matter as authorities have followed procedure contemplated under the procedure and also ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the orders, hence the writ petition may be dismissed. 34. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels and also perusal of the records, though liberty was granted to the respondents in Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016 vide order dated 24.04.2018 but the respondents could not follow observations made by this Court in the said judgment where this Court had specifically observed that whether there was any photo of missing or not, was a matter which could have been examined by the Inquiry Officer at least during the course of inquiry. 35. On perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 27.01.2021, it appears that this aspect was not at all considered. Further, it is observed that though it may not have been possible in the invisilative/examination centre itself but nothing of its kind was done and inquiry report was based entirely upon the report of R. Krishna, the handwriting expert who was not even a registered handwriting expert. These, observations were also not considered by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the re-inquiry. These, observations were also not considered by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the re-inquiry. Further, it is observed that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have also not considered the various aspects of the matter which indicates that Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority also required to consider the other aspects not only the inquiry report and the report submitted by the expert while imposing penalty but in the instant case, perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority has not at all considered any other relevant material while imposing the penalty except giving the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the R. Krishna who is so-called handwriting expert. Neither Disciplinary Authority nor Appellate Authority has considered the other aspects while imposing the punishment vide order dated 29.11.2021. 36. Further, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Pal and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) that opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered along with the other materials available on record. In the event of impersonation mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioner became unsustainable unless supported by any other material or evidence that the petitioner had not appear in the examination or had not filled the application form. 37. Even in the instant case, the respondents have failed to corroborate the expert report along with the other material available on record and it clearly discloses that the respondents have not even chosen to verify or to substantiate that the petitioner had not participated in the examination centre except having an expert opinion that too from non-registered expert. 38. In view of the said circumstances, the respondents have passed the impugned orders solely depending on the report submitted by one R. Krishna, who is handwriting expert, without verifying the other material and without establishing that the petitioner has not appeared in the examination. 39. In view of the same, the impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 and also the Appellate Authority order dated 27.01.2022 are set aside, remanding the matter to afresh inquiry by sending all the relevant documents to the forensic laboratory and also conducting a detailed inquiry by calling all the relevant records and examining the concerned persons and take a proper action, accordingly. 40. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of.