Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Sonu Khanghwal vs Staff Selection Commission on 24 January, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH TA No. 3/2012 NEW DELHI THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Sh. Sonu Khanghwal S/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o Meham Road, Vidya Nagar, Opp. Mela Ground, Bhiwani, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman Department of Personnel & Training, Block No.12, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. Union of India Through Ministry of Finance, Department of Central Excise, Central Revenue Building, I.P. Estate, ITO, Delhi-110002. ALSO AT:- HUDCO VISHALA BUILDING BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. 3. OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) N.C.T. OF DELHI L-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002. Respondents (By Advocates: Shri S.M. Arif and Shri R.N. Singh) ORDER MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A):
This application has been transferred from the District Court, Delhi and in the plaint, the applicant has made the following prayer:-
a) Pass decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to appoint plaintiff as Inspector Central Excise in pursuant to letter dated 17.3.2009;
b) Pass decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from appointing any other candidate except plaintiff to the post of Inspector Central Excise as plaintiff is legally entitled to be appointed as Inspector Central Excise as he has cleared all the examinations conducted by the defendant no.1 for the said post;
c) Award the cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff.
2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents advertised for the post of Inspector Central Excise. The preliminary test was held in February 2007 and the main examination was held in August 2007. The applicant cleared both. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in oral interview in March 2008. He was found eligible to be recruited as Inspector Central Excise and vide letter dated 17.03.2009, he was declared successful to be appointed as Inspector Central Excise. He was waiting for being asked to join the post when he received a letter from Respondent No.1 wherein he was called upon to give a specimen of his handwriting. He cooperated and gave specimen of his handwriting in June 2009 for being sent to GEQD, Shimla but till date, he has neither been appointed nor any information has been given to him regarding his candidature. On the ground of jurisdiction, the plaint of the applicant was transferred to the Principal Bench of the CAT. The matter was heard in the Tribunal and vide orders dated 29.11.2012, learned counsel for respondents was directed to produce the original record. The matter was heard again on 03.12.2012 and it was again directed that the original record be produced. The matter was finally heard on 10.12.2012 and the original record was produced for perusal of the Court. It is to be noted that no reply has been filed by the respondents and the matter has to be decided on the basis of original record produced before us. Accordingly, we have perused the record brought before us by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).
3. It is seen that the case of the applicant has been handled as a case of impersonation. He was issued a show cause notice dated 29.08.2011 and vide letter dated 14.10.2011, he was directed to visit the office of SSC and complete necessary formalities for providing specimen writing/signature. It seems that the earlier letter was returned undelivered and, therefore, he was issued another letter dated 30.07.2012 for coming to office of the SSC and submitting his specimen writing/signature. The applicant replied vide letter dated 06.08.2012 stating that he had been called upon on 25.06.2009 to give his specimen writing/signature and after 2009, after he gave his specimen writing/signature, he did not receive any communication. Accordingly, he filed a suit in the Civil Court in July 2011. The applicant has referred to letter of GEQD, Shimla dated 19.09.2011 therein, whereby they have informed the SSC that the answer books sent did not contain the upper half page of the booklets supposed to contain details of the candidate and the same was found completely missing/torn. Some other documents were also found reproduction copies. Therefore, it is his contention that the SSC has not sent his original answer sheets to GEQD, Shimla. Vide letter dated 15/16.09.2011, the SSC has sent original documents of the applicant to GEQD, Shimla. The same original documents have been received back from the GEQD and produced in the Tribunal. It is visible to the naked eye that the hand writing in the answer sheets Question 11 to Question 98 - is totally dissimilar to the specimen hand writing of the candidate given by him on 8.09.2009. The specimen hand writing and the hand writing on the undertaking given by the candidate on 19.06.2008 are the same but entirely different from the hand writing in which the answer sheets have been written.
4. Having gone through the answer sheets and the specimen hand writing of the applicant, we are of the opinion that even with the naked eye, the difference is clearly visible and it does not require the opinion of any specialized agency to give a finding that the two hand writings are totally dissimilar. It is unfortunate indeed that the SSC has taken so much time in this matter when a visual inspection was sufficient to decide the same.
5. Learned counsel for the SSC also explained to us as to why upper half of the answer book which was sent to GEQD Shimla was torn. He stated that as per practice followed, upper half of the answer book is retained by the SSC so that the name of the candidate is not disclosed to the examining agency. Learned counsel stated that earlier photocopies had been sent but subsequently originals were also sent to GEQD, Shimla.
6. A visual inspection of record has made it crystal clear to us and we are of the opinion that this is clearly a case of impersonation. We direct the respondent SSC to decide the issue by passing final orders regarding the candidature of the applicant on the basis of record available with them, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and inform the applicant accordingly. OA is disposed of with the above directions to the respondents.
( Manjulika Gautam ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/