Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arun Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 2 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 2804/2011
Date of Reserve: 10th February, 2012
Date of Pronouncement: 2nd March, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member(A)
Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramphal
r/o V.P.O. Chirya
Distt. Bhiwani, The. Ch. Dadri,
Haryana -127022.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalya,
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,,
Through its Chairman,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92.
3. The Director,
Delhi Fire Service,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant belonging to the unreserved category was a candidate for the post of Fire Operator (Post Code 003/09) in Delhi Fire Service under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He has undergone the selection process and was declared successful. His Roll No. was 00322471. The respondents DSSSB published the result vide Annexure A-5 order No.199 dated 25.11.2010. However, in the case of a few of the candidates including that of the applicants there were inconsistencies in respect of their signatures, handwriting etc. and their results have been referred to a Committee in DSSSB for further verification purposes. After verification by the said Committee, the respondents, vide impugned Annexure A-1 office order No.215 dated 10.6.2011, rejected the candidature of a number of candidates including that of the applicant on the basis of the report submitted by the Verification Committee. The respondents DSSSB has also, vide impugned Annexure-A/1A office order No.227 dated 26.7.2011, debarred the Applicants from appearing in all the examinations and selections to be conducted by the Board for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.9.2009, i.e., from the month in which the written examination for the post of Fire Operator (Post Code 003/09) was held. The aforesaid impugned orders are challenged in this OA.
3. Sh. Ajesh Luthra appeared on behalf of the applicant and Ms. Harvinder Oberoi appeared on behalf of the respondents.
4. Sh. Ajesh Luthra has submitted that this case is fully covered by the Annexure A-8 common order of the Coordinate Bench dated 21.7.2011 in OA-3415/2010 and 65/2011. The applicant in OA-3415/2010 was a candidate for the post of Warder. He qualified in the competitive examination held for the aforesaid post. But based on the report of the Verification Committee that the handwriting/ signatures/thumb impression furnished by him to the said committee as well as the handwriting/signatures/thumb impression available with the Board did not match, Committee came to the conclusion that applicant therein has indulged in the misconduct of procuring impersonation. He was, therefore, debarred from any examination to be conducted by the DSSSB for the next 5 years, vide their order dated 27.9.2010. However, this Tribunal allowed the OA on the ground that the signature and/or thumb impression of the candidates were not examined by any handwriting/finger-print expert. The Tribunal has, therefore, set aside the orders in both the OAs debarring the applicants from appearing in the examination as aforestated. However, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter and pass a final order after putting the applicants to notice and giving them chance to prove their innocence even by permitting to bring on record such material as may be relevant, and opinion of handwriting and finger print expert. It was also held that if the impugned order has to be reiterated, the same shall be reasoned one. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examining the records of the case, we are of the view that unless the applicants were issued show cause notice and heard in the matter, the orders as impugned in the present OAs could not be passed. It is no doubt true that the allegations made against the applicants are of serious nature. Impersonation in examination is out and out cheating, which would not only make an undeserving candidate to hold a public post, but the same would be also at the cost of someone who may be deserving to hold the post. The matter indeed needed to be taken seriously, but we are of the firm view that such an action, which, as mentioned above, has not only resulted in non appointment of the applicants, but would also debar them from appearing in any examination to be conducted by the respondent Board for the next five years, is too severe a punishment to be inflicted without giving even a chance to the concerned candidate to prove his innocence. We would, at this stage, not like to comment with regard to observations made in the impugned order as that may, in the ultimate analysis, when the matter is re-decided, prejudice the case of one or the other party. Suffice it may, however, to say that from the impugned order and the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears, even though prima facie, that the signatures and/or thumb impression of the candidates were not examined by any handwriting and finger-print expert. Our observation made above is only with a view to point out that there could be moot points to be urged by the applicants while calling in question the impugned orders.
6. We, as mentioned above, would not like to go into the controversy on merit at this stage and our observations made above, as mentioned, are prima facie or tentative. Inasmuch as, adverse order with deterrent consequences, such as debarring the applicants to appear in any examination of the respondent Board for the next five years, have been passed without even putting the applicants to notice, the same needs to be set aside on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. That being so, we set aside the impugned order dated 27.9.2010, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicants to notice and giving them chance to prove their innocence even by permitting to bring on record such material as may be relevant, and opinion of handwriting and finger print expert. Surely, if the orders as impugned are to be reiterated, the same shall be speaking and containing reasons for rejecting the defences, if any, projected by the applicants.
7. The two Original Applications are disposed of in the manner fully indicated above, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Verification Committee comprising of three senior officers of the Board has conducted the verification. As some inconsistencies have been found in the handwriting/signatures of some of the candidates as part of the verification process, they were called for verification. They were dealt with in a very polite manner and made them comfortable before dictating them the script from their answer sheets. They were also asked to be quite and told them that they need not worry about any slight variation in their handwriting/signatures. Thereafter, their handwriting samples, signatures and left hand thumb impression were obtained on plain paper and they were given dictation from a paragraph from their own answer sheets. Many a times, even the signatures made by the candidates were also shown to them in order to enable them to put their signature in the same manner. Thereafter, the committee analyzed the sample handwriting and the signature obtained from them with their examination related documents. On careful observation of the sample handwriting/signatures, the committee identified its different features like size and proportion, slant, flow, shape of letter, degree of connection, rhythm, form of letter, angle and style of writing, spacing, pressure strokes, loops etc. The committee examined each case in a dispassionate and impartial manner and with due application of mind. Based on the sample handwriting/signature and available examination related documents, the committee identified such cases where variation in the main features in the hand writing/signatures were clearly distinguishable. In some cases the candidates have even very candidly accepted the fact that someone else has written the exam in their place.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, this OA is squarely covered by the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3415/2010 and connected case (supra) decided on 21.7.2011. In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA with similar directions. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order of the DSSSB dated 26.7.2011 with liberty to them to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicant to notice and giving him sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence even by permitting him to bring on record such material as may be relevant including opinion of handwriting and finger print experts. If the respondent DSSSB still reiterates its earlier impugned decision, they shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and the applicant will have the liberty to challenge the same through appropriate proceedings, if so advised. The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd
OA-3149/2011
3. The factual difference in this case vis-`-vis OA-2804/2011 are that the applicant was a candidate for the post of Fire Operator under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi against Post Code No.13/2008 with Roll No.00324835. He has also successfully completed the selection process. The final result in his case was published by Annexure A-3 notice dated NIL but his case was also included in the list of candidates in whose cases the DSSSB has observed inconsistencies in case of signature, handwriting etc. and matter has been sent to the Committee for verification for this purpose. On the basis of the report of the aforesaid Committee the respondents DSSSB came to the conclusion that there were sufficient reasons to believe that he had indulged in procuring impersonation by another person, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination and selection conducted by the DSSSB for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.9.2009, i.e. from the following month in which the written examination was held. He was also informed vide impugned order dated 27.7.2011 accordingly. The said order further stated that the Committee had obtained the samples of handwriting/signature/thumb impression from the candidates and examined and compared with their respective handwriting/signatures/thumb impression available with the Board. On examination and comparison, it had been found that the handwriting/signatures/thumb impression furnished by you to the said committee as well as the handwriting/signatures/thumb impression available with the Board did not match with one another.
Sh. Sachin Chauhan appearing on behalf of applicant in OA-3149/2011 (supra) relied upon the order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3389/2010 Sh. Sushil Kaushik vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 17.8.2011 wherein one of us (Honble Shri A.K.Mishra, Member (A) is a member. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
5. It is further submitted that the Board immediately after declaration of final results of the post code No. 13/08, candidates whose results were indicated in pending list or marked with * for completion of documentations or verification of candidature, were examined by the Board and glaring variations in their handwriting /signature /thumb impression came into notice. On scrutiny of dossiers, it was also noticed that some of the candidates in contravention of the terms and conditions of advertisement had pasted blurred photograph in their application form or had pasted defaced photographs. Thumb impressions had also been put up by them in the exam. related documents, i.e., admit card/ descriptive answer sheets in such a manner that the same cannot be recognized. That on detecting glaring discrepancies ion the dossiers of candidates indicated in pending list etc. , the Board took a decision to get examined genuineness of candidates all selected candidates by a Committee. Accordingly, all the candidates whose roll numbers were in result notice dated 26.02.2010 or whose results were in pending list of the result notices dated 26.02.2010, were called in Board office for verification of candidature etc.
6. In the said case also, the applicant was debarred from appearing in any examination conducted by the DSSSB vide order dated 27.9.2010 observing the fact that debarring the person from appearing in any examination to be conducted by DSSSB for the next 5 years is definitely a very harsh decision which could not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the person. It is herein held that the aforesaid order dated 27.9.2010 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Tribunal has also observed that in case the respondents have also any doubt regarding handwriting, they should have referred the matter to the Expert on the subject, namely, CFSL or some other institute to find out the truth after taking sample of handwriting, signature or thumb impression from the candidates. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
8. Perusal of order of debarment dated 27.9.2010 shows it is a general order referring to some of the candidates whose handwriting/signature/thumb impression did not match with the samples taken by the Committee from the candidates. However, it nowhere states as to in which category applicants case falls in; whether his handwriting did not match or his signature did match or his thumb impression did not match. Even otherwise, it is specifically stated by the counsel for the applicant that before passing such an order, no show cause notice was given to the applicants as a result he could not even defend himself effectively before the Board. Definitely the order passed on 27.9.2010 has serious implications affecting his career for all times to come, therefore, the least that was required was to give a show cause notice so that he could have defended himself. Debarring a person from appearing in any examination to be conducted by DSSSB for next 5 years is definitely a very harsh decision which could not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the applicant. Even otherwise, perusal of order shows respondents have not even mentioned specifically as to what was the mismatch n the case of applicant; whether it was with regard to his handwriting, signature or thumb impression. This order, in fact, seems to have been passed in a stereotype manner without even giving the basic details to the each candidate, therefore, it gets vitiated on this ground also. Even otherwise, in case respondents had any doubt with regard to the handwriting, signature or thumb impression of the candidates, they should have referred the matter to the Expert on the subject, namely, CFSL or some other institute to find out the truth after taking sample of handwriting, signature or thumb impression from the candidates. Not having done so, we are satisfied that order dated 27.9.2010 cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving show cause notice to the applicant and after considering his reply and if need be, after referring the mater to the Expert on the subject. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that he applicant knows his fate.
6. The reply filed by the respondents counsel Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat in OA-3149/2011 was also identical. However, the respondents in this case has added that verification committee has only recommended those cases to FSL where the variations in handwriting/signature was not clearly distinguishable. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA-117/2012 Narender Singh vs. DSSSB and others decided on 13.1.2012. However, this Tribunal considered the fact that the Committee was comprising of three Dy. Secretaries and it will found the mismatching of the signatures and handwriting samples. Only thereafter they have concluded that there were cases of impersonation. Looking from the another angle also, they noted that the competent authority has a right to check the handwriting and signature of the applicant and if the applicant has written the examination himself and there has been no impersonation, he should have been too happy to cooperate. But the applicant therein did not cooperate to the verification committee. Therefore, having found no merit in the case, the OA was dismissed. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
X-----
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. First of all, dealing with OA-117/2012 decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, there is no mention about the OA-3415/2010 and 65/2011 (supra) and the decision in OA-3389/2010 (supra). The fact is that the verification committee submitted by the DSSSB consisting of 3 senior Dy. Secretaries are not experts in the field of forensic science. Moreover, the committee is a creation of the Board itself and not a statutory authority. It was in that aforesaid background that this Tribunal has considered the issue in the common order in OA-3415/2010 and 65/2011 (supra). Similar is the case of this Tribunals order in OA-3389/2010 (supra). In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 26.7.2011 in OA-2804/2010 and impugned order dated 27.7.2011 in OA-3149/2011 are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter and pass fresh orders after putting the applicants to notice and giving them chance to prove their innocence even by permitting to bring on record such material as may be relevant, and opinion of handwriting and fingerprint expert. Surely, if the orders as impugned are to be reiterated, the same shall be speaking and containing reasons for rejecting the defences, if any projected by the applicants. If the respondents would like to avail of such liberty, they shall do so within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.