Punjab-Haryana High Court
Civil Writ Petition No. 387-Cat Of 2013 vs Paramjit Singh And Another on 11 January, 2013
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 11.01.2013
1. Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Paramjit Singh and another ..Respondents.
2. Civil Writ Petition No. 388-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Surender Singh and another ..Respondents.
3. Civil Writ Petition No. 389-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Suresh Pal and others ..Respondents.
4. Civil Writ Petition No. 390-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Multan Singh and others ..Respondents.
5. Civil Writ Petition No. 391-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Kamal Verma and others ..Respondents.
6. Civil Writ Petition No. 392-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Paramveer Singh and others ..Respondents.
Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013 [2]
7. Civil Writ Petition No. 393-CAT of 2013
Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh & another ...Petitioners
Versus
Sunita Yadav and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Ms. Liza Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.1
in CWP Nos. 389 and 390 of 2013.
****
A.K.SIKRI C.J.(Oral)
This order shall dispose of all these petitions as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013.
The selection process for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors was undertaken by the petitioners which started with issuing of advertisement dated 18.02.2007. The written test was held in which the respondents qualified. Thereafter physical test was held which was also cleared by the respondents. On that basis, the appointment letters were issued to the respondents for the aforesaid posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors. However, before the respondents could join, some complaints were received by the Central Bureau of Investigation about the irregularities in the selection process. Central Bureau of Investigation investigated the matter and sent its report to the competent authority, on the basis of which the competent authority passed orders cancelling the candidature of the respondents herein. Operative part of this order, inter-alia, reads as under:- Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013 [3]
"Vide letter No. 0414/CBI/ACB/CHG dated 26.03.2012 received from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, Chandigarh along with report of the Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh in SIR RSCHG2011A0012, the CBI, Chandigarh has intimated that the following candidates were ineligible but they got themselves selected/wait listed by indulging in gross malpractice bordering on criminal liability in complete violation of the Standing Orders and procedural norms to be followed in a sensitive process like recruitment and recommended for cancellation of their candidature, as such, their candidature for the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (Recruitment-2007) is hereby cancelled.".
The respondents herein filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the cancellation of their candidatures. These O.As. have been allowed vide the impugned order which is common in all the O.As. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the following two considerations weighed with the Tribunal in setting-aside the aforesaid:-
i) the competent authority did not apply its own mind and merely on the intimation of the C.B.I. stating that the respondents had indulged in gross malpractice bordering on criminal liability, passed the orders for cancellation of their candidatures. It is impressed by the Tribunal that even if the charges were serious as stated by the C.B.I., the competent authority was suppose to look into the matter and apply its own mind before passing the orders.
ii) No opportunity of show-cause was given to the respondents herein before passing the impugned order.Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013 [4]
No doubt, the irregularities and the malpractices allegedly committed by these respondents as found by the C.B.I. are of serious nature, however, at the same time, it is clear that the impugned order suffers from procedural flaws as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal and noted above. The respondents had been issued the appointment letters and therefore, some right accrues in their favour, even if they had not joined the duties so far. At least, they should have been given an opportunity to make their representation. Further more, the Tribunal is also correct that the competent authority should re-visit the relevant aspects and consider the matter afresh after complying with the principles of natural justice. Once this liberty is given to the competent authority, it would not put any adverse impact insofar as the impugned orders are concerned. The competent authority can even now proceed further after following the aforesaid procedure. Once it is found that the procedure adopted is blemish which has resulted into the impugned order and which entails civil and criminal consequences in so far as the respondents are concerned, the requirement of following that procedure becomes imperative. It is an old age saying that those who yield procedural sword normally get perished by the same. The instant case is the classical example of proving this dictum.
However, at the same time, having regard to the nature of alleged malpractice, we are of the opinion that till the time this exercise is undertaken and completed by the competent authority, the competent authority would be at liberty to keep the appointment orders in abeyance, and if it so wants, it would not allow the respondents to join the duties in the meantime. We grant one month time to the competent authority to decide and take action.
Civil Writ Petition No. 387-CAT of 2013 [5]
With these observations, all the petitions are disposed of.
(A.K.SIKRI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
11.01.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
'ravinder' JUDGE