Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Sahadev Hooda And Another on 10 December, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 24380 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 10.12.2012
Union of India and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Sahadev Hooda and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The Union of India and others have filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby OA No. 731-HR-12, filed by Sahadev Hooda (respondent No.1 herein) for setting aside the order dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure A-5) cancelling his candidature in respect of the Combined Graduate Level Examination and debarring him from appearing in any of the Examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Committee for a period of 5 years, has been allowed, and the petitioners have been directed to proceed afresh in the matter, after complying with the principle of natural justice and after supplying the material forming the foundation of taking CWP No. 24380 of 2012 -2- decision to cancel the candidature of respondent No.1.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Undisputedly, it is not a case of use of unfair means by a candidate, who has been caught red-handed at the spot. It is the case, where in the Post-Examination Analysis conducted by the experts, the candidate (respondent No.1) was found indulging in malpractice. Admittedly, the relevant material, which became foundation of the aforesaid decision, was not put to respondent No.1. The Tribunal has taken the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, such material must have been put to respondent No.1, so that he can reply to the same. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right while coming to the conclusion that said material has to be supplied to respondent No.1, in order to comply with the principle of natural justice. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the direction given by the Tribunal.
No merit.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
December 10, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
ndj JUDGE