Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Chowdappa G M vs Department Of Atomic Anergy on 23 August, 2023
1
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00363/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON: 05.07.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 23.08.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1.Chowdappa G.M,
S/o Maruthi G,
Aged about 28 years,
Working as Technician/B-Boiler Attendant,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130.
2.Shubham Niranjan Patil,
S/o Niranjan Patil,
Aged about 28 years,
Working as Technician/B-Boiler Attendant,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130.
3.Renukumar K.A,
S/o Late Appachu K.T,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Driver Ordinary Grade,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130.
4.Manoj Kumar,
S/o Late Nataraj,
Aged about 27 years,
Working as Driver Ordinary Grade,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130.
5.Sunil Kumara H.S,
S/o Shivarame Gowda,
Aged about 28 years,
Working as Driver Ordinary Grade,
2
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130.
6.Shivashankar Jagannath Sonune,
S/o Shivashankar Jagannath Sonum,
Aged about 27 years,
Working as Pharmacist/B,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre- Rare Material Project,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130. .....Applicants.
(By Advocate Shri Prithveesh M.K)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushakti Bhavan,
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,
Mumbai-400 001.
2. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
(Rare Material Project,
Represented by its Director,
P.B.No.1, Yelwal (P.O.),
Mysuru-571 130. ....Respondents
(By Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) Call for records from the Respondents relating to the impugned memorandums dated 26.08.2022.
b) To quash the impugned memorandums bearing No. (i) 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2843; (ii) 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2844 (iii) 3 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2892; (iv) 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2893; (v) 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2894 and (vi) 02(13)/Rectt./2022/2898 (Annexure-
A7 series), all of which are dated 26.08.2022 and passed by the 2nd Respondent, wherein the recruitment made through the Advertisement, has been cancelled and the services of the applicants have been terminated with immediate effect.
c) Pass any other appropriate order as this Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this Application.
2. Subsequent to filing the present OA, the applicants had sought for grant of interim relief in terms of an interim stay against the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned memorandums dated 26.08.2022. This Tribunal had, vide its order dated 29.09.2022 declined to grant an interim stay in the matter as follows:
"We do not find prima facie case to grant the interim relief as sought for. However, it is needless to observe that if any representation is made by the applicants for extension of time to vacate the official quarters the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and a decision shall be taken in an expedite manner to grant the interim relief as sought for. "
3. This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the applicants in WP No:
22246 of 2022 before the Honourable High court of Karnataka at Bangalore. During the process of hearing of the WP, certain interim orders were passed by the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, which are of relevance in the present case as follows:4
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench ORDER dated 5.12.2022 Heard the learned ASG.
Hearing was granted in the chambers in exclusion of others.
The learned ASG has placed a report and also shown certain communications. Having perused the report it is evident that hearing is required to be deferred by the Court as the material placed before the Court i.e. the report is now under the consideration of the highest office, who is also the Minister-in- charge of a highly sensitive department. In that view, we are of the opinion that the hearing be deferred by six weeks and await the decision of the P.M.O. on the report.
The teamed ASG would also submit that they would also request the CAT to similarly defer the hearing.
In the meanwhile liberty is also granted to the respondents to examine cases of such persons who they may feel are innocent of any wrong doing and if such opinion is found, the respondents may also examine reviewing the cases of such innocent persons.
List after six weeks.
ORDER dated 27.02.2023 The affidavit dated 21 .02.2023 is taken on record. List this matter next week in order to enable the learned ASG to secure instructions as to whether the exercise to re-do the examination be restricted to such of those question papers that have been leaked.
List this matter on 09.03.2023.
ORDER dated 9.03.2023 Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court has conveyed its sentiment with regard to CBI being engaged to look into the matter 5 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench and submit a report expeditiously with regard to identifying people who have remained above-board.
Learned Additional Solicitor General prays for 15 days' time and submit that he would personally go through the records and assist the Court. List this petition on 27. 03. 2023.
4. The WP No: 22246 of 2022 was finally disposed of by the Honourable High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 1.06.2023. The operative portion of the order of the High Court was as follows:
"2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2022 passed in Original Application No.363/2022, whereunder the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT' for short) has not found a prima facie case to grant an interim relief as sought for in the application filed by the petitioners and the present petition is filed seeking for interim relief as is sought for by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it expedient that the main matter before the Tribunal be disposed of expeditiously. In that view of the matter, the above writ petition is disposed of with a request to the Tribunal to take up the application for hearing on the next date of hearing and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the Tribunal for advancement of hearing.
4. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the Reports (3 Nos.) i.e., Status of question paper leakage and extracts of Confidential Reports, Report of the Committee dated 29.07.2022 and 11.10.2022 submitted by the respondents before this Court in a sealed cover forthwith to the Bench of the Tribunal hearing the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.6
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench There shall be no order as to costs."
5. Three Confidential reports in sealed covers were also received by the Registry along with the copy of the order of the Honourable High Court dated 1.06.2023 as follows:
i) Status of question paper leakage and extracts of confidential reports.
ii) Report of the Committee dated 29.07.2022 on investigation carried out in the irregularities in Recruitment at RMP, Mysuru.
iii) Report of the Committee dated 11.10.2022 Cyber Forensic Analysis of personal computer allotted to Shri P. Sripal, Assistant, RMP Mysuru.
6. Accordingly, the matter was listed before this Bench and heard. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows:
a) The 2nd Respondent- Centre issued an advertisement in the year 2018 where under applications were invited from the general public for recruitment to various vacant posts in the 2nd Respondent-Centre. In response to the said advertisement of the 2nd Respondent, the Applicants applied for selection and recruitment to the posts as per the following table:
Name of the Applicant Rank of party before Post applied to this Tribunal Sri. Chowdappa G.M Applicant No.1 Technician/B-Boiler Attendant Sri. Shubham N. Patil Applicant No.2 Technician/B-Boiler Attendant 7 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Sri. Renukumar K.A Applicant No.3 Driver Ordinary Grade Sri. Manoj Kumar Applicant No.4 Driver Ordinary Grade Sri Sunil Kumar H.S Applicant No.5 Driver Ordinary Grade Sri. Sunune Applicant No.6 Pharmacist/B Shivashankar J
b) The Applicants underwent rigorous selection process of Stage-1 Preliminary Test, Verification of Documents, Advanced Test & Skills Test. Upon qualifying the said examinations, the Final Result as well as the List of Selected Candidates was published by the 2nd Respondent.
c) Pursuant to the said selection, the Orders of appointment were issued by the 2nd Respondent in favour of these Applicants on several dates.
Copies of the Orders of appointment are marked as Annexure-A3 series. It is submitted that Clause (A) of the Order of appointment for the very first time indicated that the appointment of these Applicants was temporary and is likely to be continued indefinitely, whereas, the advertisement calling for applications issued by the 2nd Respondent did not mention that the appointment of these Applicants was only temporary. The advertisement specifically stated that the appointment was by way of direct recruitment.
d) Pursuant to the said appointment Orders, office memorandums came to be issued where in the Applicants were appointed in a temporary capacity and were to be on a probation for a period of one year.
e) In pursuance of the above Orders of appointment as well as the official memorandum, the Applicants reported for duty to the 2nd Respondent and also satisfactorily completed the probationary period. Copies of the 8 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench communications declaring the closure of probationary period in respect of each of the Applicant (6 in number), is marked as Annexure-A5 series. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd Respondent issued confirmation Orders wherein the Applicants are all appointed to the posts mentioned as against their names in a substantive capacity in their entry grade, with effect from a retrospective date (Annexure A-6 series). All the Applicants are substantively appointed to the posts mentioned hereinabove as against their names and that thereby they are all employees of the 2nd Respondent- Centre.
f) The 2nd Respondent has passed the impugned Memorandum dated 26.08.2022 wherein the employment of these Applicants in the 2nd Respondent-Centre has been terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to these Applicants, on the sole ground that the entire selection process pursuant to Annexure-A1, has been grossly compromised leading to other irregular recruitments.
g) Aggrieved by the impugned memorandum dated 26.08.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Applicants present this Application on the following grounds:
i. The Applicants admittedly are fully qualified to hold the posts to which they are appointed by the 2nd Respondent and this position is not disputed even in the impugned memorandum. ii. The Applicants have undergone the rigorous selection process and upon their appointment, have completed their probation satisfactorily. The 2nd Respondent has further issued the Orders 9 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench of confirmation of the appointment of these Applicants. Such being the case, the termination of their services simpliciter is illegal and unsustainable.
iii. The impugned memorandum dated 26.08.2022 is also contrary to the mandate under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India which provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be removed/terminated from service except after holding an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. In the present case, the services of these Applicants are terminated without conducting an enquiry or issuance of any show cause notice prior to such termination. iv. The impugned memorandum is in absolute derogation of the principles of natural justice which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the Applicants have not even been informed as to what the alleged irregularities are, in the selection process which has resulted in passing of the impugned memorandum.
v. The impugned Order being stigmatic & punitive in nature, is not termination simpliciter and, therefore, could not have been passed without conducting a detailed inquiry by framing charges against the Applicants as also required under the extant Service Rules.10
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench vi. The appointment of these Applicants can neither be claimed by the 2nd Respondent to be illegal, arbitrary or fraudulent nor be claimed to be contrary to the procedure as per the recruitment advertisement/notification. Such being the case, the Applicants who have put in more than 2-3 years of service and have also gained experience in the posts held by them, cannot be penalized on the alleged irregularities in the selection process dehors the extant Rules. Assuming that there were irregularities in the selection process, the entire selection process cannot be annulled and the appointees including these Applicants cannot be terminated.
vii. It is incumbent upon the 2nd Respondent to undertake the exercise of identifying the beneficiaries of the alleged irregularities and to take action against such beneficiaries. In the absence of such an exercise, the annulment of the appointment of the appointees such as the Applicants would be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
h) The issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Raghupathi - V/s- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 646; Mahipal Singh Tomar
-Vs- State OF Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 16 SCC 771 and many other cases, in which it has been held that services of regular appointees cannot be terminated in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that right to livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be 11 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench deprived to the appointees except in accordance with the procedure as mandated under the extant Rules.
7. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they averred as follows:
a) Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India is engaged in the frontier areas of nuclear research and development, design, construction and operation of nuclear power/research reactors and supporting nuclear fuel cycle technologies covering exploration, mining and processing of nuclear minerals, production of heavy water, nuclear fuel fabrication, fuel reprocessing and nuclear waste management.
b) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, hereinafter referred to as BARC, is a premier multi-disciplinary Research and Development Organization under the Department of Atomic Energy, hereinafter referred to as DAE, Government of India. It is engaged in scientific research with the objective of generating knowledge and techniques of nuclear power production, advancement of science, use of Radioisotopes in industry, health and agriculture as well as research in frontier areas of science and technology.
c) BARC follows safety and security standards as per the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines. In-line of this, DAE imparts special training and creates manpower accordingly (ie. Health Physicists, Security Personnel, Fire Personnel, Technician, Plant Operator etc.) up to the mark of IAEA guidelines. 12
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
d) In the year 1982, the Department of Atomic Energy had decided to construct a classified project named "Rare Materials Plant" for conducting advanced research in materials associated with nuclear energy. In the year 1984, this project was handed over to the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking under the administrative control of the DAE for its execution. In the year 1991, the Rare Materials Plant, Mysore was taken over by the DAE vide Order dated 07.02.1991 and placed under the administrative control of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, which is a constituent Unit of DAE and the Rare Materials Plant was renamed as Rare Materials Project (RMP).
e) Rare Material Project (RMP), Mysore is a sensitive nuclear installation in BARC under the DAE located at Yelwal, Mysore, Karnataka. The Ministry of Home Affairs has categorized RMP as Category 'A' installation (Highest Security Categorization) from security point of view.
f) The Department of Atomic Energy has been empowered to take suitable action on all matters relating to the personnel under the control of the Department. Annexed as 'Annexure-R1'. It is further stated that by virtue of the said allocation, the Department of Atomic Energy has been exempted, from consulting Union Public Service Commission in framing of Recruitment Rules for various posts as well as for recruitment to the posts.
13
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
g) An Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018 was issued by Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru during the year 2018 inviting online applications for the various Scientific/ Technical/ Administrative/ Auxiliary posts such as, Stipendiary Trainee Category- I & I1, Technician/B - Boiler Attendant, Sub-Officer/B, Driver Cum Pump Operator-cum Fireman/A, Driver Ordinary Grade, Security Guard, Pharmacist/B, Steno Grade-III and Upper Division Clerk.
h) The said advertisement was issued for filling up of 103 vacant posts.
Out of 103 posts, 93 candidates were selected and placed against vacancies advertised at BARC, Mysuru. One candidate of CAT-I Trainee, resigned from the Training and one CAT-II Trainee, was terminated due to criminal case pending against him. Further, one employee expired after his absorption from training.
i) Against the said Advertisement, 12 employees have completed their probationary period and 7 employees have been confirmed. On completion of satisfactory training and probationary period by a few candidates, confirmation orders were issued in respect of only some officials appointing them in substantive capacity.
j) There were various complaints dated 08.05.2019, 27.08.2019 and 20.05.2020, an article dated 09.10.2020 in local Newspaper, and a Police Notice received at Rare Materials Project (RMP), Mysuru on 10.06.2019 alleging malpractices and irregularities in the recruitment process relating to Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018. There were also five audio clip conversations including one audio 14 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench conversation which went viral on social media, about the bargaining by a Rare Materials Project (RMP) employee with a waitlisted Category-II (CAT-II) Trainee.
k) Since the complaints were found to be very serious in nature, BARC vide Order dated 26.05.2022, constituted a Committee to investigate into the complaints of alleged corruption/ irregularities and lack of transparency in the recruitment process carried out by RMP, Mysuru since 2018 and alleged involvement of some officials of RMP, Mysuru in the same under the Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018.
l) The Committee on 29.07.2022 submitted its Final Report on the investigation carried out on the irregularities and corruption in recruitment process at Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru. The Committee, after going through the depositions from officials and non-officials, available records, various complaints received on the alleged irregularities and after analysing all the events that took place with regard to recruitment under Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018, concluded that:
i) Various Question Papers under the said advertisement were leaked prior to the examination.
ii) Officials responsible for recruitment activities in RMP under the said advertisement lacked co-ordination and totally failed in conducting the examination and selection process fairly. 15
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
iii) Destroying the evidences, by weeding out of documents, in spite of there being complaints, a deliberate attempt to stop the truth from coming out.
iv) Leaking of question papers and other irregularities were coordinated and executed by some officials of RMP and some contractors.
v) Confidentiality of the process of setting question papers was not maintained adequately by the officials involved in the process. Further, the administrative authorities failed to ensure printing of question papers in a secured environment.
vi) The concerned official was negligent over setting of the Question Papers by Course Coordinators who have taken the help of 5 or more officers for each question paper setting and thus failed in their duties to ensure setting of question papers, in utmost secrecy.
vii) The Examination-in-charge and other officials of RMP, Mysuru had given a scope for leaking of the question papers, and indulged in unprofessional conduct of examination and selection process.
viii) In spite of knowing the involvement of RMP officials and about irregularities that were taking place outside, the concerned Security Officials had not reported the matter appropriately. 16
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ix) A strong nexus between the officials involved in recruitment activities and contractors was seen for favouring children / relatives friends of RMP employees for illegal gratification.
m) The Committee's Report brings out corruption, nepotism and other wrongdoings by various departmental and outside elements. Disciplinary action has already been initiated against the officials who were responsible for the above lapses. One official has been dismissed, two officials are already placed under suspension and some officers have been transferred out of RMP, Mysuru to avoid tampering of documents/ influencing of witnesses.
n) Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) examined the Committee's Report dated 29.07.2022 and observed that the selection process carried out has been grossly compromised and vitiated leading to irregular recruitments. Hence, DAE ordered cancellation of the recruitment made through the said Advertisement and termination of the officials appointed against the said advertisements forthwith without notice.
o) Accordingly, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai vide Note No.DEO(V)/2021/Vig./327 dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure-R4) conveyed the decision of the Competent Authority in the Department to cancel all the recruitments made through Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018 (Annexure-A1).
p) In this connection, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mysuru issued Memoranda dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure-A7) for immediate 17 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench termination of employment in respect of 91 Nos. of officials appointed against Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018.
q) Government is committed to zero tolerance towards corruption, nepotism and hence the above steps have been taken by the Department to restore citizen's faith in Government's activities especially transparency in recruitment process.
r) Once the entire selection process has been compromised, there is no other option but to cancel and scrap the select panel/ wait list panel drawn from the said Advertisement. Consequent on scrapping of the select / wait list Panel, those selected and appointed from the said Panel do not have any right to continue in employment. It will be a travesty of justice to those vast number of deserving candidates if the candidates selected and appointed through the said Advertisement through an irregular, fraudulent and compromised selection process are allowed to continue in employment.
s) The Respondents submit that the Supreme Court has held that no notice is required to be issued to the persons affected in the case of mass scale malpractice in the selection process as observed in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. Vs Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC
515).
t) The Respondents submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the case of Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. (JT 1996 (8) SC 510 (Annexure-R7) that if the Competent Authorities have taken the decision on the basis of the report submitted by the 18 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench investigating agency, containing proof in support of the allegations of malpractice committed in writing the examination, no prior opportunity need be given in such cases. It is well settled that the appointment made from selection dehors the rules, or provisions or the 'Act' applicable, are unenforceable and in-executable, thus, are to be set aside as the rule of law.
u) The Department of Atomic Energy examined the Committee Report and found that the selection process carried out have been grossly compromised and vitiated, leading to irregular recruitments. Hence, it was ordered to cancel the recruitment made through said Advertisement and terminate the officials appointed against the said advertisements forthwith without notice.
v) The Respondents deny the contention of the Applicants that impugned Memorandum is derogation of natural justice. The Applicants being outcome of a forged, fake, defective and compromised process of selection, has no right to the post and shall have no right to the principle of natural justice and their services have rightly been terminated by the impugned order.
w) The Respondents further submit that the Supreme Court has held that no notice is required to be issued to the persons affected in the case of mass scale malpractice in the selection process as observed in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. Vs Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC 515] (Annexure-R6).
19
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
x) The Respondents submit that the Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of rigid formula and its application would depend upon the scheme and policy of the statute and relevant circumstances involved in a particular case.
8. The respondents filed an additional affidavit on 4.07.2023, wherein they have averred as follows:
a) Respondents submit that many irregularities in the recruitment process were deliberately caused by the officials responsible for conducting the recruitment process with a malafide intention. Brief observations in this regard are as under: -
i) The Advertisement was released in Employment News with last date of submission of application prescribed as 12.09.2018. As such, sufficient time was not given to the candidates to respond to the advertisement. The last date was subsequently extended upto 22.09.2018 which was not notified in the Employment News.
ii) Publicity of the advertisement was given in local newspapers only thereby restricting its publicity. As a result, only local candidates had an advantage in submitting applications which defeated the purpose of providing fair opportunity to all the eligible candidates located across the country.
iii) Admit cards for the examination scheduled at Mysuru (the only venue of examination) were issued in short time which caused 20 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench difficulties in making travel arrangements for those candidates located in different parts of the country.
iv) The Committee constituted by the Competent Authority in the Department which enquired into the irregularities in recruitment committed at RMP, Mysuru has documented carelessness and negligence on the part of the officials concerned besides not ensuring confidentiality in setting question papers, lack of proper supervision while printing and packing which were committed with a fraudulent intention.
v) Another Committee in BARC, Mumbai which carried out cyber analysis of personal computer of one of the conspirators has evidenced that the said conspirator had sent crucial and confidential information relating to the recruitment such as complete details of the candidates, their contact details, stage- wise results of various examination, application forms and admit cards of some of the candidates to his personal gmail account. It was also documented that question papers of the said examinations for 18 posts out of 27 posts were also found to have been sent to personal gmail account of the said conspirator. With regard to leakage of question papers for remaining 9 posts it can be logically inferred that since the said conspirator and some of the officials involved in the irregularities had access to those question also papers at different stages of setting and printing, it was very much possible that the question papers got leaked by them through other means such as taking out a copy of printed 21 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench question paper without leaving a trail. The extent of irregularities is so spread that it cannot be narrowed down to a certain number of posts. The Committee further established communication of the conspirator with a candidate, large amount of cash deposits into his bank account during the said recruitment process from different places and financial transactions with other employees involved in the irregularities, etc.
vi) Most of the selected candidates are locals who have either of their parents/ relatives working in RMP, Mysuru and other Units of DAE. This cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence.
vii) Malpractices committed in the examination as reported by the local Police to the Administration of RMP, Mysuru as early as June, 2019 were ignored without taking any corrective action. This clearly indicates a strong nexus for carrying out recruitment in a fraudulent manner by those involved in the recruitment process for unlawful gains and with a malafide intention.
viii) The authorities at RMP, Mysuru have also failed to address appropriately the various complaints received from different sources in this regard.
ix) Reputation of the Respondent Department got dented by an audio clip of an employee of RMP, Mysuru bargaining bribe with a candidate over phone offering employment which went viral in social media. Besides, the matter of corruption and large scale 22 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench irregularities resulting in fraudulent recruitment was also reported in local newspapers.
b) Perusal of the above events clearly shows that recruitment process at RMP, Mysuru was fully compromised leading to a vitiated and fraudulent selection process. The said irregularities were committed with malafide intention at every level and stage of the recruitment process in all the Trades and Disciplines that took place under the above said advertisement.
c) It is submitted that considering the matter in its entirety and noting that fair opportunity was denied to many eligible candidates, the highest authority in the Respondent Department has decided to scrap the Select Panels/ Wait list panels prepared through the fraudulent recruitment process. Consequently, all those recruited through the advertisement including the Applicant in connected OA No. 363/2022, OA No. 407/2022, OA No. 410/2022 and OA No.440/2022 were terminated from the service.
d) It is further submitted that considering the seriousness of the matter, the Competent Authority in the Respondent Department has taken stern action against all those officials involved in the irregularities including the then highest authority in RMP, Mysuru. Two of the conspirators viz. Shri B. Krishnappa and Shri P. Sripal have already been dismissed from service out of which one conspirator was dismissed under Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 dispensing with inquiry proceedings duly considering the seriousness of the malpractice committed by him. 23
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Besides, the Department has also taken appropriate disciplinary action against the following officials including the then Project Director:
S. Details of employee Action Taken
No:
1 Shri B. Krishnappa, Dismissed from service vide Order dated
Fireman/D 29.6.2022 after issuing Charge Memorandum
dated 12.11.2020 and holding enquiry
2 Shri P. Sripal, Assistant Dismissed from service vide Order dated
14.12.2022 under Rule19 (ii) of CCA Rules
3 Smt. Lata B., Ex- Chief Issued Charge Memorandum dt. 30.06.2022
Administrative Officer
4 Shri M.Madhavan, Placed under suspension with effect from
Scientific Assistant/E 27.07. 2022 vide order dated 25. 07.2022 and issued Charge Memorandum dated 10.11.
2022.
5 Shri T. K. Bose, Transfered to HWP, Tuticorin and issued Administrative Officer- Charge Memorandum dated 29. 11. 2022. Ill 6 Shri B. S. Arun Kumar, Issued Charge Memorandum dated 08.12.
Scientific Officer/H 2022 7 Shri P. Babu Rajan, Issued Charge Memorandum dated 21.12.
Asst. Personnel Officer 2022 8 Shri G. Venkata Placed under suspension vide Order
Chalapathy, Asst. dated 26. 07. 2022 and issued Charge Security Officer/A Memorandum dated 21.12.2022.
9 Shri P.Shanmugavelu, Issued Charge Memorandum dated 21.12.
Scientific Officer/H 2022
10 Shri V. Varadarajulu, Transferred to BARC, Mumbai and issued
Security Officer Charge Memorandum dated 22.12.2022.
11 Shri H.A. Issued Charge Memorandum dated 24.02.
Balasubramanya, Ex- 2023
Project Director
Director, RMP
e) It is submitted that the above facts were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No.22246/ 2022 24 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench filed by the Applicants in OA No. 363/2022 pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It was also submitted to the Hon'ble High Court that the Reports of two committees not only contain the extent of irregularities committed by the officials, but also contain confidential information pertaining to the organization, statement of Senior Officers who have deposed before the Committee and claimed threat to their life if their details are exposed. Hence, the Reports were claimed 'Privileged'. Appreciating the facts the Hon'ble Court perused the Reports in the Chamber of the Judges on 05.12.2022 in isolation of the other side.
f) It is submitted that the Competent Authority in the Department of Atomic Energy considering the facts that many candidates got selected in a fraudulent manner in collusion with the conspirators in RMP, Mysuru denying fair opportunity to many eligible candidates, has submitted a proposal before the Hon'ble High Court to conduct a re- test in order to afford a reasonable opportunity to all candidates (about 19600 candidates) who have submitted application against the advertisement in question, including the Applicants herein and other Applicants in OA No. 363 of 2022 and connected OAs No.407 of 2022, 410 of 2022 & 440 of 2022 pending before Hon'ble CAT with the leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
g) The Honourable High Court at Bengaluru vide its order dated 1.06.2023 disposed the Writ Petition with a direction to this Tribunal to dispose off OA No: 363/2022 as expeditiously as possible. The Hon'ble High Court had also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to 25 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench transmit the confidential reports i.e. Status of question paper leakage and extracts of confidential reports, Reports of committee dated 29.07.2022 and 11.10.2022 in sealed cover forthwith to this Tribunal hearing the matter. The interim relief sought by the Applicants was not granted by Hon'ble High Court.
h) It is to be appreciated that the assessment and decision of the highest authority in the Department of Atomic Energy was based on the fact that the whole process of selection was done in a fraudulent manner and having the select panels for all the posts under the advertisement scrapped. It is humbly submitted that in view of the facts as brought out supra, especially when the integrity of the officials involved in the recruitment process was in question and in larger public interest, the entire exercise of conducting recruitment process against advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01//2018 issued during 2018 by RMP, Mysuru requires to be done afresh. In the present case, as narrated supra, large scale malpractices committed in the recruitment by the officials who failed to discharge their responsibilities properly which are well documented, redoing the entire process against the said advertisement is just and proper in public interest and in the interest of the Department.
i) It is submitted that the decision of the Respondent Department in cancelling select Panels and accordingly terminate the services of the candidates selected for various posts, was fair, just and in larger public interest. As such in a case of fraudulent recruitment process, the terminated candidates are not entitled for notice as their selection itself 26 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench was void ab-initio. The decision of the Respondent Department is in line with various Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited hereunder:
1. Dated 07.11.2000 between Nazira Begum Lashkar and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors [A.I.R. 2001(SC) 102 = J. T. 2000 Suppl. 2 SC 417]
2. Dated 8.5.1996 between Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. Vs Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors.[JT 1996 (6) SC 515]
3. Dated 6.9.1996 between Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. [JT 1996 (8) SC 510]
4. Dated 28.9. 1964 between C. Channabasavaiah vs State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293]
5. Dated 5.12.1995 between Pascchimbangab Prathamik Sikshak Shikshan vs President, W. B. Primary Schools Council &Ors.r(1996) sec (7)]
6. Dated 11.7.1985 between Union of India & Anr vs Tulsiram Patel &Ors. [AIR 1985 SC 1416]
7. Dated 12.5.1994 in Civil Appeal No. 726 with 727 of 1993 between Krishan Yadav and Anr. vs State of Haryana and Ors.
8. Dated 25.1.1993 between State of U.P. and Ors. vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Ors. [AIR 1994 SC 1654]
9. Dated 31.3.1999 between State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raja Mahendra Pal &Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 1786, (1999) 4 SCC 43, 1999 AIR SCW 1376]
j) Wherefore, in the above circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Respondents humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to consider the facts as brought out supra and to dismiss the OA No. 363/2022, O.A. No. 407/2022, O.A. No. 410/2022, O.A. No. 440/2022 in limine with cost. Further, considering that fair opportunity was denied to many eligible candidates, the Hon'ble Tribunal may appreciate the facts 27 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench and pass suitable orders, if any, in conducting re-test by the Respondents Department against said Advertisement No.BARC/ MYS/01//2018 issued in 2018 whereby allowing all the candidates to appear in the selection process, who had applied against the said advertisement subject to meeting all prescribed eligibility conditions as on last date prescribed for receipt of application viz., 22.09.2018.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
10. The three confidential reports in sealed covers received by the Registry of this Tribunal along with the copy of the order of the Honourable High Court dated 1.06.2023, were opened and perused. These three reports were as follows:
i) Status of question paper leakage and extracts of confidential reports.
ii) Report of the Committee dated 29.07.2022 on investigation carried out in the irregularities in Recruitment at RMP, Mysuru.
iii) Report of the Committee dated 11.10.2022 Cyber Forensic Analysis of personal computer allotted to Shri P. Sripal, Assistant, RMPMysuru.
11. These three reports, after perusal by the bench, were again ordered to be resealed and placed in the custody of the registry of this Tribunal. 28
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
12. In the present case, services of around 90 candidates have been terminated on 26.8.2022. These candidates had been selected through an advertisement issued on 20.8.2018. The selection process against this advertisement was conducted in a phased manner between 17.3.2019 to 25.10.2019. The final result and list of selected candidates was published by the respondents with regard to various posts of the said advertisement in the period between 06.5.2019 to 26.12.2019. All the applicants were subsequently employed in a phased manner on different dates in the year 2019-20. Trainings were conducted for a period of 2 years in accordance with the advertisement. In respect of 19 employees, probation period was closed in the year 2021-22. Confirmation orders were also issued to 7 employees, appointing them in substantive capacity vide orders dated 19.8.2021 & 09.5.2022.
13. From the facts averred in the pleadings submitted by the respondents, it appears that there were a number of complaints received by them on 08.5.2019, 10.6.2019, 27.8.2019, 20.5.2020 & 09.10.2020. This included 5 audio clip conversations, including one conversation, which went viral in social media, newspaper article dated 09.10.2020. A separate Police Notice was also received on 10.6.2019.
14. However, it appears that no action was taken on the allegations made in these complaints and the respondents went ahead with the appointment process which was completed in the year 2019-20. In many cases, the probation period of the appointees was closed in 2021-22 and even confirmation orders were issued to 7 employees, appointing them in substantive capacity.
29
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
15. Subsequently, the BARC constituted a Committee on 26.5.2022, almost after more than 2 years from the date of the initial complaints made against the selection process, to look into these allegations and complaints. This Committee was entrusted with the task to look into the complaints of alleged corruption and lack of transparency in the recruitment process and alleged involvement of some of the officials of RMP, Mysuru.
16. Final Report of the Committee dated 29.7.2022 was submitted to Department of Atomic Energy. Department of Atomic Energy scrutinized this Report dated 29.7.2022 and came to the conclusion that the selection process carried out, had been grossly compromised and vitiated, leading to irregular recruitments. Vide order dated 25.8.2022, it ordered to cancel the recruitment made through the said advertisement and terminate the officials appointed against the said advertisement forthwith, without notice. Consequently, termination orders were issued on 26.8.2022.
17. Looking at the entire synopsis of the events, it is strange to observe that despite the allegations being received in the year 2019-20, no action seems to have been taken by the respondents till constituting a Committee on 26.5.2022 to look into the allegations. The Committee in its report, has broadly concluded that various question papers under the said advertisement, were leaked prior to the examination and this was done in connivance of the officials responsible for recruitment activities. It was also concluded that confidentiality of the process of setting question papers was not maintained adequately by the officials of RMP including the Examination-in-charge, giving a scope for leakage of the question papers. They also allegedly indulged in unprofessional conduct relating to 30 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench examination and selection process. It is also alleged that in spite of knowing the involvement of RMP officials in the irregularities that were taking place outside, the concerned Security Officials had not reported the matter appropriately. It was concluded that there was a strong nexus between the officials involved in recruitment activities and contractors, and they were seen as favouring children/ relatives/ friends of RMP for illegal gratification.
18. However, in the entire process, the respondents or the Committee have failed to identify as to which of the appointed applicants, if any, have benefitted directly or indirectly from these irregularities and whether any of them had been a beneficiary of these irregularities in the selection process.
19. The action taken by the respondents is delayed by a period of more than two and a half years with no tangible justification given by the respondents for this delay. It should have been imperative on the part of the respondents to put the entire process of selection on hold before it was finalised, as soon as the complaints were received by them and to investigate the matter relating to alleged fraud in the selection process.
20. There has been an enormous and unexplained delay in initiating any corrective action from the time of receipt of the initial complaints/ allegations and the time when the Committee was constituted to look into these allegations. There was no action taken in the matter prior to completion of the selection process. The action taken by the respondents to cancel the entire selection process of recruitment, was well after it had been completed, appointment orders had been issued, and the appointees had been in service for a significant period.
31
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
21. Once the selection process is completed and the selected persons have been appointed, with some of the appointees being even confirmed on their posts, a right accrues to the appointees, for being heard before any punitive action is taken against them. It would be against the principles of natural justice to terminate their services without assigning any specific reason or providing them an opportunity of being heard.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Appeal (civil) 3411-3421 of 2005, Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others vs. State of Punjab & others, dated 3 May, 2006, has observed as follows:
"41.If the services of the appointees who have put in few years of service were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of the State was imperative viz (1) to establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entire selection process. Such satisfaction has also the sufficiency of the materials required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner. (3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt."
23. It is not appropriate to cancel the entire selection process and terminate the services of all the appointees without establishing as to which of these appointees have been a beneficiary of the alleged fraud. Such a decision would be arbitrary and without any cogent reason. It is necessary to identify 32 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench the beneficiaries, if any, in this tainted process, who need to be weeded out. The entire selection process cannot be declared illegal after such a long gap, particularly when the entire selection process had already reached a finality. This requires a detailed criminal investigation to be conducted by a professional criminal investigation agency such as the CBI. Suitable action under law can then be taken only after the investigation reaches a conclusion that that the appointees in majority have been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt to the extent that it is not possible to segregate the tainted appointees from the untainted ones.
24. The respondents have relied upon a number of court cases cited by them to justify their action of cancellation of the entire selection process and terminate the services of the applicants on the ground that the process was fully compromised leading to a vitiated and fraudulent selection process involving a number of officials/officers of the respondents.
25. However, a careful examination of all these cases reveal that the facts in these cases are entirely different and the ratio of these cases cannot be applied in the case at hand.
26. In the case of Nazira Begum Lashkar and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors Dated 07.11.2000 (A.I.R. 2001(SC) 102 = J. T. 2000 Suppl. 2 SC 417), the appellants had been appointed as Assistant Teachers of Primary Schools in the year 1990. But those appointments were cancelled by the State Government, after giving show cause notice to the appellants inasmuch as the appointments had been made, though no posts were available and the appointments had been made, not in accordance with the prescribed 33 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench procedure. The facts in the present case are completely different since in the present case, posts were available and appointments have been made as per the prescribed procedure, which was allegedly tainted due to the fraud perpetrated by the officials regarding leakage of papers. Moreover, no show case notice has been issued in the present case to the applicants. Hence the facts in this case being completely different, the judgement in this case has no relevance to the case in hand.
27. In the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. Vs Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Ors Dated 8.5.1996 [JT 1996 (6) SC 515] the issue related to filling up of six posts of chargemen, 'B' Grade in Mechanical Electrical Division through an allegedly fake selection process. The selection was questioned. The Tribunal had called for the record and on perusal of the record, noted many malpractices in the evaluation of the answer sheets of some of the candidates as well as changes in the marks awarded in some cases.
"The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Roll No.001078 (Umakanta Panigrahi) shows that though at Sl.No.3, in the first page of the answer book, his marks were shown as '00' it was change to '20'. At Serial Number 11, there has been correction of the original marks to 25, the original marks appearing to be 20. This is how the total was brought to 95. In second page of the answer book though the mark given for Question No.11 B were 10, later 5 has been added by someone to make it 15. In page No.4, after the answer 1/8 written by the candidate, there could be seen some alternation to 0.8 by someone. The facing page or the Answer Book of the of candidate 001235 (Sri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) show over writing at three places appears to have been changed to 18 and total 91 appears to have been changed to 94. It is not possible to mark out how and why answer book 001567 of candidate Rajani Kanta Guru was evaluated by different examiner and marks noted in pencil 34 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench as also his signature as apparently initials on this answer book are totally different from the initials of the other examiner. There is practically no explanation coming forth as to how and why this examiner was different from this paper alone. We have perused the original tabulation which reveals that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview were altered and then total made of the marks obtained in the written test as well as the interview. Even for a naked eye, it appears that the marks obtained by the petitioner were originally 24 and the same reduced to 22 by subsequent correction and totally with this correction total was also brought down to 117 from 119. "
28. The question examined by the court in that case was that in the light of such glaring malpractices, whether the principles of natural justice was required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them. The facts in this case are completely different from the present case since no malpractice directly associated with any specific applicant has been pointed out by the committee.
29. In the case of Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. [JT 1996 (8) SC 510] Dated 6.9.1996 for the recruitment to Group 'C' posts, a notification was issued on July 19, 1994 inviting applications for selection of 48 Ticket Collectors in Lucknow Division in the pay scale of Rs.950- 1500/- Out of 800 candidates who appeared in the examination, 106 candidates got place in the select list which was subsequently cancelled on the ground that mal-practice was committed in writing the examinations as the papers were leaked out earlier to the date of examination. In this case only the select list had been cancelled. No subsequent appointment had been made in pursuance to that list. Hence, the facts in this case are different from 35 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench the present case where subsequent to completion of the selection process, the appointment orders have also been issued and the applicants have all joined their posts with some of them even being confirmed in service after completion of probation.
30. In the case of C. Channabasavaiah vs State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] Dated 28.9. 1964 the case related to fifty-five writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution invoking Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution against the State of Mysore and the Mysore Public Service Commission in respect of appointments made to certain services in the Mysore State. The petitioners who were applicants for some of the posts were unsuccessful while others were appointed. In some of the petitions the successful candidates joined as respondents. A perusal of the judgement indicates that the facts in this case are completely different and have no relevance to the case in hand.
31. In the case of Pascchimbangab Prathamik Sikshak Shikshan vs President, W. B. Primary Schools Council &Ors.r(1996) sec (7)] Dated 5.12.1995 applicants were seeking appointments as Assistant Teachers in different primary schools of West Bengal, being run and managed by District Primary School Boards/Councils within their respective territories. They contended that though they had the requisite educational qualifications and basic trainings for such appointments, the Boards/Councils were preparing panels and giving appointments to untrained applicants and persons of their own choice, in utter disregard of the Rules framed and circulars issued in that behalf. In the present case no doubt or allegation has been raised with regards to the eligibility of the candidates who were appointed and now 36 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench stand terminated. The facts in this case being completely different have no relevance to the case in hand.
32. In the case of Union of India & Anr vs Tulsiram Patel &Ors. [AIR 1985 SC 1416] Dated 11.7.1985 the scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure, and Principles of Natural Justice have been examined. In the present case however, the doctrine of pleasure has not been invoked to terminate the services of the applicants. Hence, the judgement is not relevant to the present case.
33. In Civil Appeal No. 726 with 727 of 1993 between Krishan Yadav and Anr. vs State of Haryana and Ors Dated 12.5.1994, the issue related to validity of selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board. The allegations were that there were various acts of nepotism and favouritism and the whole selection was arbitrary. The interviews were wrongly conducted on 3.10.1989 and for reasons best known the original record including the answer books were destroyed on 27-12-1989. However, in that case there was a detailed investigation by the CBI which was relied upon by the Court. It drew an inference from the report of the CBI that the selection was motivated by extraneous considerations. The court stated that "Otherwise, how does one account for, selection without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery which was pointed out in the CBI report". The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case where there has been no detailed investigation by a professional investigation agency such as the CBI to establish wrong selection by manipulation of records or fabrication of documents, fake and ghost interviews etc. Hence, this judgement is not relevant to the present case.
37
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
34. In the case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Ors. [AIR 1994 SC 1654] Dated 25.1.1993, the case related to the status of the law officers engaged by the State Government to conduct the cases on its behalf in the High Court. The questions bearing on the profession of the lawyer, his relationship with his client, and the relationship of the Government and for that matter of all the public bodies with the lawyers they engage for conducting their matters, were under consideration. The issue examined related to termination of the services of the law officers. This judgement is not relevant to the present case.
35. In the case of State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raja Mahendra Pal &Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 1786, (1999) 4 SCC 43, 1999 AIR SCW 1376] Dated 31.3.1999 the dispute related to entitlement of the sale price of the various forest produce sold by the appellant out of the Kutlehar forest to the respondent- corporation. It was claimed that he was also entitled to share the interest on delayed payment, interest on interest and compensation for damages caused to the trees in the course of extraction of timber etc. The issues therein are not at all relevant to the present case.
36. In the present case, the Committee has failed to establish whether any one of the 90 appointees, who have now been terminated, had been the direct or indirect beneficiary of this fraud. No effort seems to have been made to segregate the cases of tainted selections with the cases of non-tainted cases. In fact, no specific case of appointment has been identified as a tainted case of selection, in the case of any of the terminated employees. The Committee has only identified various misdemeanours committed by the officials involved in the selection process. There has been no attempt or effort by the 38 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench respondents to identify any of the applicants, who could have been the direct or indirect beneficiary of this fraud, or to segregate the tainted cases of selections from the untainted ones.
37. The respondents, in their detailed reply have contended that the process suffered on account of restricted publicity on account of the advertisement being given in local newspapers only. As a result, allegedly only local candidates had an advantage in submitting applications which defeated the purpose of providing fair opportunity to all the eligible candidates located across the country. This contention cannot be accepted keeping in view the fact that for around 103 posts more than 19,600 applicants had applied, as stated by the respondents themselves in their reply. These figures surely do not confirm any inadequate coverage. Moreover, the applications were to be received through online mode only. It is therefore quite clear that this recruitment action was publicized through the official website as well. Hence, it cannot be assumed that the process suffered from lack of publicity.
38. Another contention of the respondents is that most of the selected candidates are locals who have either of their parents/ relatives working in RMP, Mysuru and other Units of DAE and that this cannot be brushed aside as a mere coincidence. However, in the report of the committee, no palpable link of any of the parents/ relatives of any of the selected candidate has been indicated with the leakage of the question paper. It is in fact the job of a professional investigative agency such as the CBI to investigate and find out the possible link with credible evidence of any unholy nexus between the selected candidates or their parents/relatives and the officials involved with the alleged leakage of the question papers.
39
OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
39. Before taking any drastic step of cancellation of the entire selection process and termination of the appointed employees, it was imperative on the part of the respondents to conduct a detailed investigation into the involvement in the fraud, if any, of any of the candidates/applicants who now stand terminated, but who had been appointed and had worked for a significant period apparently to the entire satisfaction of the respondents.
40. It would therefore be appropriate for the respondents to have a detailed investigation conducted through a professional investigating agency such as the CBI, to identify the tainted cases and then take appropriate action in the matter under law. An investigation conducted by a professional criminal investigation agency alone could establish whether there is sufficient material present to enable the respondents to arrive at a conclusion that the applicants in majority have been found to be part of a fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt. It is only after this is established, through a detailed investigation, that there would be any justification to cancel the entire process of selection and terminate the services of all the applicants, as has been done in the present case.
41. Keeping in view the above points, the OA is disposed of with the following directions:
a) The impugned orders dated 26.08.2022 vide which the services of the applicants have been terminated, are quashed and set aside.
b) The authorities are directed to get a detailed investigation conducted through a professional investigating agency such as the CBI, in order to segregate the cases of appointments of candidates that have become 40 OA.No.363/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench tainted, due to any connection with the fraudulent process on account of irregularities in the process of selection as pointed out by the Committee.
c) Subsequent to this segregation, of the tainted cases from the untainted ones, suitable action under law may be taken against the candidates in the tainted cases.
42. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/