Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devender Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission on 17 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.2839/2014 OA No.2157/2014 OA No.2438/2014 OA No.2610/2014 MA No.2225/2014 MA No.2660/2014 OA No.2611/2014 MA No.2222/2014 MA No.2659/2014 OA No.2609/2014 MA No.2220/2014 MA No.2661/2014 OA No.2615/2014 MA No.2227/2014 MA No.2658/2014 OA No.2824/2014 OA No.2825/2014 OA No.2863/2014 MA No.2479/2014 OA No.2967/2014 OA No.2990/2014 OA No.2879/2014 OA No.2959/2014 OA No.2933/2014 OA No.2969/2014 OA No.2875/2014 OA No.2866/2014 OA No.3807/2013 OA No.2898/2014 OA No.2911/2014 & OA No.2912/2014 NEW DELHI THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) OA NO.2839/2014 Devender Yadav, S/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Age_____years, Roll No.2201055883, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Nangal Sirohi, Teh-Mohindergarh, Mohindergarh, Haryana 123028. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2157/2014 Ravi Kumar, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Village-Asadpur, PO-Tatarpur, Distt-Rewari, State-Haryana-122502. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Central Board of Excise and Customs Through its Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2438/2014 Sunil Kumari, D/o Sh. Nanharam, Age 26 years, Roll No.2201113128, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Village Jhamri, PO Jhamri, Tehsil Matan Hail, Jhajjar, Haryana 124142. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Mr. Mayank Upadhay and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2610/2014 MA NO.2225/2014 MA NO.2660/2014 Pankaj Mann (2201545533), Age 27 yrs, S/o Sh. Jagpal Singh, H.No.282, Vill. Naya Bans, Dpo-Kherakalan, Delhi-110082. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhay and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2611/2014 MA NO.2222/2014 MA NO.2659/2014 Neeraj Mann (2201545534), Age 27 Yrs, S/o Sh. Vedpal Singh, H.No.240, Vill-Naya Bans, Dpo- Khera Kalan, Delhi-110082. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhay and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2609/2014 MA NO.2220/2014 MA NO.2661/2014 Dinesh (2201520792), Age 27 Yrs, S/o Sh. Satvir Singh, H.No.65, Pana, Kalyan, VPO- Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-110041. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhay and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2615/2014 MA NO.2227/2014 MA NO.2658/2014 Lovely (2201567199), Age 26 Yrs, S/o Sh. Dharamvir, Plot No.910, VPO- Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-110041. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhay and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2824/2014 Satydev, S/o Sh. Ombir, Age 27 years, Roll No.2201119265, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Deroli Ahir, Dist. Mohindergarh, Mohindergarh, Haryana -123028. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director, NR, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2825/2014 Kirosta, D/o Sh. Om Prakash, W/o Narender, Age 26 years, Roll No.2201119265, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Deroli, Ahir, Tehsil Narnaul, Mohindergarh, Haryana 123001. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director, NR, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2863/2014 MA NO.2479/2014 1. Rakesh Kumar (Appointment) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander, R/o J.K. Mistan Bhandar, Main Delhi Chowk, Kharkhoda (Sonepat), Haryana. 2. Netrapal Singmar, (Appointment) Aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Anand Singh Singmar, R/o H. No.T-47, A Railway Colony, Panipat, Haryana -132103. 3. Kusum Dabas, (Appointment) Aged about 24 years, D/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Dagar, R/o Outer Nizampur Road, VPO Ladpur, Tau Bihari Marg, Delhi-110081. 4. Praveen, Aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o Village Jahri, PO Tharu, Sonepat, Haryana-131001. Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS 1. Union of India & Ors. Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2967/2014 Amit Kumar, Age-27 yrs., S/o Manke Ram, R/o VPO-Kassar Panajangi, The-Bahadurgarh, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2990/2014 Chirag Kapoor, Age-26 yrs., S/o Devender Kapoor, R/o 260 BY 2 Rambir Singh Colony, Railway Road, Jind, Haryana-126102. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Central Board of Excise and Customs Through its Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2879/2014 Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Mukhtyar, Age 28 years, Roll No.2201540683, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Village Zahidpur, PO-Bhurthala, The. Kosi, Dist. Rewari, Haryana 123302. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2959/2014 Sandeep Kumar, Age-27 yrs., S/o Jaikishan, R/o H.No.9, Gali No.1, Siraspur Colony, Delhi-42. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2933/2014 Amit Mann, Age-27 yrs., S/o Shiv Kumar Mann, R/o H.No.241, Khera Khurd, Delhi-110 082. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C., Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2969/2014 Amit Kumar, Age-27 yrs., S/o Mohinder Singh, R/o-VPO-Kassar Panakala, The-Bahadurgarh, Distt.-Jhajjar, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2875/2014 Mamta, D/o Sh. Partap Singh, Age 26 years, Roll No.2201545270, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Village-Zahidpur, PO-Bhurthala, The. Kosi, Dist. Rewari, Haryana 123302. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2866/2014 Lalit Kumar, S/o Sh. Surender Kumar, Age_____years, Roll No.2405069619, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Village Kukshi, Post Deroli, Ahir, Tehsil Mohindergarh, Mohindergarh, Haryana 123028. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3807/2013 1. Rahul Ahlawat, S/o Sh. Asha Ahlawat, R/o A-1/284, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 2. Neeraj Hooda, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Hooda, R/o Flat No.81, Pkt-1, Green Hill Apartment, Sec-23, Rohini, Delhi. Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS 1. Union of India & Ors. Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2898/2014 Satwant, S/o Sh. Manmohan, Age 26 years, Roll No.2201148492, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Kharkara (Bhatol), Tehsil Hansi, Hisar, Haryana 125033. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2911/2014 Ropendar Baliyan, S/o Sh. Dhoom Singh, Age 25 years, Roll No.2201076525, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o VPO Goela, Patti Gange, Tehsil-Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar, UP-251318. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2912/2014 Ashu Gupta, S/o Sh. Dinesh K. Gupta, Age 26 years, Roll No.2201115280, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o G-60, Mohan Garden, Rama Park Road, West Delhi, Delhi, Pin-110059. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) :ORDER: MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
MA No.2225/2014 has been filed in OA No.2610/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2225/2014, the same is allowed. MA No.2660/2014 has also been filed in OA No.2610/2014 seeking amendment of the OA. The same is not allowed at the present stage when the OA is now listed for final hearing.
2. MA No.2222/2014 has been filed in OA No.2611/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2222/2014, the same is allowed. MA No.2659/2014 has also been filed in OA No.2611/2014 seeking amendment of the OA. The same is not allowed at the present stage when the OA is now listed for final hearing.
3. MA No.2220/2014 has been filed in OA No.2609/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2220/2014, the same is allowed. MA No.2661/2014 has also been filed in OA No.2609/2014 seeking amendment of the OA. The same is not allowed at the present stage when the OA is now listed for final hearing.
4. MA No.2227/2014 has been filed in OA No.2615/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the OA. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2227/2014, the same is allowed. MA No.2658/2014 has also been filed in OA No.2615/2014 seeking amendment of the OA. The same is not allowed at the present stage when the OA is now listed for final hearing.
5. MA No.2479/2014 has been filed in OA No.2863/2014 for joining together. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2479/2014, the same is allowed.
6. All these OAs were taken up for hearing on the request of counsel for both parties on the ground that the cause of action and reliefs claimed by the applicants in all these OAs are identical. With consent of both parties, OA No.2839/2014 has been adopted as the lead case (Devender Kumar Versus Staff Selection Commission) for the purpose of proper adjudication of all these matters. Common order is accordingly being passed in respect of all these OAs.
7. The applicants in these OAs are aggrieved by the action of the respondents of withholding their candidature vide list published on 30.05.2013, which is stated to be against the principles of natural justice. The applicants allege that without any basis or reasons having been communicated to them, their candidature is withheld because of which the applicants career and selection are adversely affected and others are being considered for appointment. There is nothing on record as per the impugned show cause notice issued to the applicants by the respondents to which the applicants could reply or submit their response against withholding the appointment. The impugned show cause notices in these OAs are completely arbitrary and unjustified and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The show cause notices issued to the applicants are, therefore, under challenge.
8. The reliefs sought in the lead OA is as follows (similar reliefs have been sought in the connected OAs):-
a. Direct the Respondents to set aside the Show Cause Notice dt. 27.05.2013 vide no.2/2012-CGL/RD/4/011 issued against the applicant.
b. Remove the name of Applicant from the list of withheld candidates dt. 30.05.2013 and declare the Applicant herein appointed in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 for Non-Interview Post under OBC Category as per his merit.
c. Direct the Respondents to grant appointment to the Applicant on the appropriate post pursuant to the marks obtained by him along with all benefits and allowances, with retrospective effect from the date of withholding of candidature.
d. Pass any such other and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper.
9. Briefly, facts of the case are that applicants applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2012 (CGLE-2012) and cleared Tier-I and Tier-II Examinations. They were declared eligible for interview on the basis of having scored the cut-off marks. Applicants were called for interview wherein they appeared and the result was declared on 08.02.2013 (in the lead case). The name of the applicant was incorporated in the list of candidates recommended for appointment for Non-Interview Posts. Subsequently, on 30.05.2013, a revised result was published by the respondents in which the name of the applicants were shown in the list of withheld candidates, despite their being declared successful on 08.02.2013. A show cause notice was received alleging that the applicant resorted to copying in association with other candidates without giving or mentioning any evidence to substantiate the allegation or without naming any of the candidates with whom the alleged copying was said to have been done. Reply to the show cause notice was filed and it was requested to supply all the evidence on the basis of which the allegation of copying had been made. Till filing of the OA, no reply of the respondents was received.
10. Applicants have referred to the judgment of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 in OA No. 1352/2013 with other connected OAs (Ashok Kumar Vs. SSC & Ors.) whereby identical show cause notices issued to the applicants were quashed and set aside and liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices along with all the evidence, details, modus operandi etc. to enable the applicants to give an effective reply. It is stated that after the filing of the OAs, no fresh show cause notice has been issued.
11. Applicants have also referred to the judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 (Sudesh Kumar Vs. SSC & Ors.) with other connected OAs by which the second show cause notice issued to the applicants in those OAs were quashed and set aside and respondents were directed to grant appointment within 90 days. It is pleaded that since no evidence has been communicated to the applicants and the applicants career and service are continuously affected, the action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and violative of the rights of the applicants. It is prayed that the reliefs claimed in these OAs be granted to them by way of direction to grant appointment to the applicants against the appropriate post in consonance with the marks obtained, and with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of withholding of candidature of the applicants in these OAs.
12. Both parties were heard. Written submissions have also been filed by both parties.
13. It has been argued by the applicants that respondents have stated in writing on affidavit in similar matters (CP No.31/2014 in OA No.2054/2013) that they do not have any proof apart from the names of candidates with whom the alleged malpractice has been indulged by the applicants. The second show cause notice has not withstood judicial scrutiny for the reasons clarified in the order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014. Respondents should not, therefore, be allowed to issue any second show cause notice which would unnecessarily prolong the issue since the matter is already pending for more than one and a half years from the date of reply to the show cause notice. It has also been argued that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in its order dated 06.05.2014 in OA No.231/2013 (along with connected OAs) has directed appointment after quashing the first show cause notice itself and the present set of OAs are squarely covered by the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench. The conduct of the respondents is also clear from the facts that no reply has been filed in many of the OAs. It is, therefore, argued that the first show cause notice issued to the applicants be quashed and set aside with no liberty to issue second show cause notice as it would lead to multiplicity of litigation, which in turn would further delay the appointment of the applicants.
14. Learned counsel for applicants relied upon the following judgments:-
Order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 along with connected OAs (CAT Tribunal, PB, New Delhi);
Order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013 along with connected OAs (CAT Tribunal, PB, New Delhi);
Order dated 06.05.2014 and 28.05.2014 in OA No.231/2014 (CAT Tribunal, Allahabad);
Order dated 30.05.2014 in OA No.424/2013 (CAT Tribunal, Patna) and;
Order dated 11.09.2013 in W.P. (C) No.1022/2013 (Honble Delhi High Court, New Delhi).
15. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the respondents. Respondents counsel argued that the show cause notice was issued based on prima facie view taken by the Commission after Post Examination Scrutiny and Analysis by an outside agency that the applicants had resorted to copying in the Examination of CGLE-2012. Referring to the order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013, it is stated that the Tribunal has already disposed of similar matters in OA No.1414/2014 and OA No.1875/2014 directing the Commission to issue a fresh show cause notice to the applicants therein. A similar controversy/issue came up for hearing before the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/2013 (Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein the Honble High Court had granted liberty to the respondents to take suitable action after following the procedure in accordance with law. Copy of the judgment has also been filed with the written submission. It is further argued that the order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 does not relate to the present set of OAs because that was in relation to the second show cause notice issued by the respondents and is, therefore, not applicable in the present set of OAs. Moreover, the applicants have argued for a similar direction by the Tribunal as were given in OA No.1352/2013 along with connected matters on 22.11.2013. The present set of OAs, if at all are covered by the order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013 and similar orders passed in subsequent set of OAs by the Tribunal.
16. We have perused the pleadings and documents on record (in the lead case) and have given anxious consideration to the arguments placed by both parties.
17. We notice that in a similar set of matters, the Tribunal had observed as follows in paras 22 & 23 vide order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013 and other connected OAs:-
22. In the present case, the impugned Show Cause Notices do not indicate the details of malpractice committed by the candidate or what was the nature of copying indulged by the candidate. It is only stated that incontrovertible and reliable evidence has been emerged during the regular post examination scrutiny and analysis of performance of the candidate by the experts, who have proven expertise, that the candidates have resorted to copying in association with other candidates who also took the same examination. The respondents, though taken substantial time for filing counters but not chosen to file the same finally. Therefore, there is no occasion to this Tribunal to know what was the method adopted by the respondent-SSC, to come to the aforesaid conclusion on the conduct of the candidates. It is also not on record that a particular candidate committed the alleged malpractice individually or in association with any other candidate and if so who is the said candidate and in what manner both of them done the mischief. Though the learned counsel for the respondents, vaguely submitted that the answer books of the candidates were compared with the answer books of other candidates by using highly technical and scientific methods and basing on the proportional similarities in giving right and wrong answers and also in not answering certain questions at all, neither he placed the so called specific procedure or method or modus operandi adopted by the Experts nor stated the specific malpractice/copying alleged to have committed, by each applicant. In the absence of the same, this Tribunal cannot express any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the said modus operandi, said to have been adopted by the respondent-SSC. For all these reasons, the impugned Show Cause Notices being violative of principles of natural justice are liable to be quashed.
23. Equally, this Tribunal cannot express any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the vague allegations made against the candidates without giving any details in the impugned Show Cause Notices, for want of necessary pleadings. Ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the first show cause notice as would appear from para 24 of the OA, which reads as follows:-
24. All these OAs are pertaining to the CGLE-2012. The respondent-SSC has already conducted the CGLE-2013, and they may require to initiate process for the CGLE-2014 also in few months. It is not in any bodys interest to linger the selection process undecided, for a longer period. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, and to save valuable time of the candidates, and in the larger interest, we quash all the impugned Show Cause Notices issued for cancellation of the candidature of the applicants for CGLE-2012, and also for debarment of all Commissions examinations for a period of five years. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue fresh individual Show Cause Notices by giving full details of their alleged malpractices/copying and the detailed modus operandi adopted by the respondents in coming to the said conclusion and after considering the representations submitted thereto, and to pass appropriate speaking and reasoned orders in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed as early as possible, but not later than, 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We observe that the present set of cases are squarely covered by the aforenoted findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notices issued in these OAs cannot be legally sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside.
18. Another argument that has been made on behalf of the applicants is that no liberty should be granted to the respondents to issue second show cause notice as was contained in order in para 24 of the Tribunal in OA No.1352/2013 dated 22.11.2013.
19. We notice that this argument of the counsel for applicants has also been controverted by the counsel for respondents, as noted above.
20. Applicants have placed reliance on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in OA No.231/2013 dated 06.05.2014 along with connected OAs. This order was passed at the stage of the first show notice issued by the respondent-SSC to the applicants in those OAs. In para 14 of the order of the Allahabad Bench, the Tribunal observed as follows:-
14. A perusal of the facts and proceedings in the O.A. is clearly suggestive of the fact that the memorandum dated 16.04.2012 issued by the respondents, which is in nature of a show cause notice, merely constitutes an empty formality and suffers from the flaws of lack of adequate material on the basis of which the respondents proposed to take action. It did not contain any material based upon which the applicants could have provided an adequate response. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case, there should have been an explicit mention of the materials, which was sought to be utilized by the concerned authority in taking the proposed action. What is necessary in such cases is that the reasons must be clearly and explicitly stated so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Absence of such basic explicit material in the show cause notice make is vitiated and therefore untenable. In the circumstances it is felt that the memorandum dated 16.04.2012 having not fulfilled the basic requirement of a show cause notice is patently illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order dated 22.01.2013 passed based upon the show cause notice dated 16.04.2012 also become vitiated and cannot be sustained.
21. It appears that on the basis of the aforenoted findings, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the show cause notice and Memorandum dated 16.04.2012. Based on MA No.330/02257/14, a further modification in the order was made by the Tribunal directing the respondents to declare the results of the applicants, and if found successful, to allocate them to the service to which they were found eligible on the basis of merit. The argument of the applicants in the present OA was that the show cause notice issued in the present set of OAs be quashed and set aside and orders directing appointment of the applicants be issued on the same lines as passed by the Allahabad Bench vide the modified order wherein no liberty was granted to issue a second show cause notice. Reliance has also been placed on this Tribunals order in OA No.930/2014 dated 30.07.2014, which we have perused. It appears from para 23 of that order that even in the second show cause notice there was absence of details of malpractice. Para 23 of that order reads as follows:-
23. It is thus evident from the aforenoted that in the absence of the details of malpractice alleged by the SSC to have been committed by the candidate, and having only stated that incontrovertible and reliable evidence had emerged as per regular post examination scrutiny and analysis, there was no occasion for this Tribunal to know as to what was the method adopted by the respondents-SSC to come to the conclusion regarding the conduct of the candidates. Moreover, it was not clear whether the alleged malpractice was committed individually or in association with any other candidate. The Tribunal was, therefore, of the view that the show cause notice was devoid of specific and clear material and evidence regarding the allegation which could not be upheld.
22. After examining whether the second show cause notice issued to the applicants in these OAs provided sufficient material or not to enable the applicants to place their defence, the Tribunal in para 25 came to the conclusion that the second show cause notice also did not provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the applicants to place their defence, which was required in terms of the principles of natural justice. It also concluded in para 27 that both the show cause notices issued to the applicants were more or less identical and had been issued in a mechanical manner and in para 40. It was further held that for the same reason as contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2013, as well as in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad dated 06.05.2014, the impugned show cause notices were not fit to be legally sustained and were quashed and set aside.
23. Another aspect noticed was that more than nearly two years and four months had already elapsed since the publication of notice of CGLE-2012. Such a long period of litigation had delayed the appointment of the applicants, which would not only adversely affect the career of the applicants but would keep them in total uncertainty. In para 46, it was concluded that any further delay cannot therefore be allowed.
24. In the present OAs also, we find that the notice for the CGLE-2012 was issued on 24.03.2012. Thus, nearly 2 years and 6 months had already elapsed since issue of the said notice. It is also observed that if the respondents are allowed to issue a second show cause notice, it will take further time and would result in further delay in the matter. This would adversely affect the career of the applicants and lead them to further uncertainty.
25. It appears from para 33 of the order in OA No.930/2014 that in CP No.31/2014 in OA No.2054/2013 along with other related CPs, the Tribunal in order dated 07.03.2014 had observed However, it is a fact that it is well nigh impossible to reply to a show cause notice which does not indicate to them the exact evidence of malpractice/unfair means and what the modus operandi of the department has been It was noted by the Tribunal in that order that even the second show cause notice suffered from non-indication of malpractice/unfair means and what the modus operandi of the department had been.
26. It is thus apparent from above that even after the second show cause notice was issued and the same having been examined by the Tribunal, it was found that as per the second show cause notice had the respondent-SSC hardly any material to substantiate the allegation other than those mentioned in the first show cause notice.
We have also noted that no averment or argument has been placed on behalf of the respondent-SSC that subsequent to the order in OA No.930/2014 dated 30.07.2014, they have been able to collect additional material to substantiate the allegations against the applicants so as to justify the issuance of the second show cause notice.
We have also noted above that the chronology of events would also lead to the conclusion that the entire process has been unduly delayed and that nearly 2 years and 6 months have elapsed from the date of issue of the notice for CGLE-2012 and nearly 1 year and 7 months have elapsed since respondents declared the result on 08.02.2013. The future of the applicants continues to be uncertain. We, therefore, conclude that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent-SSC to issue a second show cause notice in the present set of OAs. The Allahabad Bench also had passed final orders on the basis of the first show cause notice without giving opportunity to the SSC to issue any further show cause notice.
27. Having regard to above, the impugned show cause notices in these OAs not being legally sustainable are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicants in these OAs, and allocate them to the service purely on the basis of merit, if found successful in the examination. While doing so, the respondents shall fully conform to the rules and instructions for declaration of results and for allocation of service to those applicants who are found successful on the basis of pure merit. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. OA No.2839/2014 along with connected OAs are accordingly allowed by this common order with aforenoted directions. No order as to costs.
29. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jk/