Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aryan vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 28 April, 2026
1
OA 1403/2025
Item No. 51(C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 1403/2025
This the 28th April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Aryan, 22 years Approx., Group ‗C'
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar
R/o Vill.: Peer Khera,
P.O.: Jhinjhana,
Tehsil: Unn, Distt.: Shamli,
U.P. - 247773
E-mail ID: [email protected]
Mobile No. 8941873600
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. A K Bhakt)
Versus
Union of India &Ors.
Through,
1. The Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, 4th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3. The Regional Director,
Staff Selection Commission (NR), 5th Floor, Block
No. 12, CGO complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-
11003
..... Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. Hilal Haider)
PINKY PINKY YADAV
2026.04.30
YADAV 18:02:10+05'30'
2
OA 1403/2025
Item No. 51(C-4)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
By way of filing the present OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-
"8. Relief sought:
1) Quash and set aside the impugned Orders 'Status of Admission Certificate for Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025 rejecting the candidature on the reason of debarred candidate received on 27.01.2025 and other impugned Order File No.3/1/2023-(Vol I) EA-
NR dated 09.04.2024 [Annexure A/1 (Colly)]. (II) To direct the respondents not to debar the applicant for 7 years in appearing in the Examination of the Staff Selection Commission and allow the applicant to appear in the further examinations of Commission if the applicant desires to participate in the further examinations of SCC. (III) To award exemplary cost on the respondent for cassing undue harassment.
(IV) To pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the end of justice.
2. Brief Facts of the Case:
2.1 The applicant applied for the post of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff and Havaldar (CBIC & CBN) Examination, 2022 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). According to the applicant, while filling the online application form through a cyber café, an inadvertent error occurred, due to which the applicant's photograph and signature were mistakenly PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 3 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) uploaded in another candidate's application form. The applicant submits that he never appeared in the said examination and remained unaware of the discrepancy.
2.2 It is the case of the applicant that he came to know about the issue only when he attempted to apply in a subsequent SSC examination in the year 2024 and discovered that he had been debarred from appearing in SSC examinations.
2.3 A show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 was issued to the applicant alleging that his photograph matched with the photograph uploaded in another application bearing Registration No. 30004134357 and Roll No. 2201334226.
2.4 The said show cause notice alleged malpractice/impersonation under Para 20.1 of the Notice of Examination and called upon the applicant to explain why his candidature should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred for seven years.
2.5 Since no reply was submitted within the stipulated period, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 cancelling the candidature of the PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 4 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) applicant and debarring him for a period of seven years from appearing in any examination conducted by SSC.
2.6 Aggrieved thereby, the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.01.2025 followed by a reminder dated 27.03.2025, explaining that the mismatch occurred due to an error by the cyber café operator and that he had never appeared in the examination. As no relief was granted, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
2.7 Further, attention has been drawn to the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in MA No. 5287/2025, wherein this Tribunal observed as under:--
"The learned counsel for the applicant seeks interim relief as prayed in para 9 of the OA, which reads as under:
„In view of above facts and circumstances the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant to submit his online application form and appear only in further examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission till the disposal of this OA.‟
2. The learned counsel for the applicant refers to Annexure A-1 (colly), whereby the respondents have stated that the photo of the applicant is a match with the application photo of another candidate of the Multi Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff and Havaldar (CBIC & CBN) Examination, 2022 bearing Registration No. 30004134357 and Roll No. 2201334226 respectively. The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 and was asked to reply within a period of 10 days to explain why his candidature should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 5 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) appearing in future examinations conducted by the respondents.
3. A query was put to the learned counsel for the applicant as to why the applicant did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued on 23.12.2023, to which learned counsel submitted that the applicant is not sufficiently educated to regularly browse through e-mails and, therefore, he could only submit his representation at a later stage, i.e., on 29.01.2025.
4. The respondents have considered the representation of the applicant dated 29.01.2025, followed by reminder dated 27.03.2025 and vide their order dated 09.04.2024 have cancelled the candidature of the applicant as well as debarred him for seven years from appearing in future examinations to be conducted by the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of interim relief and states that it is a clear case of impersonation as the photo of the applicant matched with the photograph of another candidate appearing in the examination in question.
6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, no interim relief as prayed by the applicant in para 9 of the OA can be granted at this stage and the same is rejected. Accordingly, the MA for interim relief is dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks three weeks‟ time to file the counter reply. Time granted.
8. List on 19.01.2026."
2.8 Further, vide order dated 03.03.2026, this Tribunal observed as under:--
"Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to obtain specific instructions with regard to the conduct of the examination in question and apprise this Tribunal on the next date of listing.
2. It is stated that the counter affidavit has been filed and a copy thereof has been received by the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder and is ready to address arguments.
4. List on 10.03.2026. It is made clear that in the event the matter is not heard finally on the next date, the prayer of the applicant for grant of interim relief shall be considered and decided."
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 6 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) 2.9 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the course of hearing on 15.04.2026, this Tribunal passed the following order:--
"The respondents are directed to file a specific affidavit explaining under which category of malpractice the show cause notice was issued.
It is observed that the show cause notice has been issued in terms of Para 20.1 of the examination notice. However, Para 20.1 is a general clause. Clause 1 thereof, which refers to a prescribed period of two years, reads as under:
S.No. Type of Malpractice Debarment
period
1. Taking away any Examination related material such as Rough 2 years.
Sheets, Commission Copy of Admission Certificate, Answer Sheet etc. from the examination hall or passing it on to unauthorized persons during the conduct of examination.
There is, however, no clarity as to whether any specific clause corresponds to Clause 4 as mentioned in the show cause notice, which reads as under:
"From the data of the application submitted by you for the said examination, it appears that your photograph matches with the photographs of other applicants for the same examination having different registration numbers."
Let a detailed affidavit clarifying the above position be filed within one week. No further adjournment shall be granted.
List on 21.04.2026 as Part-heard. Issue Dasti." 2.10 Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the additional affidavit, submits that the case of PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 7 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) the applicant has been considered in the right perspective and in accordance with law. 3.1 He submits that the show cause notice was duly issued to the applicant, however, no reply was furnished within the stipulated period of ten days. It is contended that the respondents were justified in drawing an inference of malpractice/impersonation in view of the matching photographs in two separate applications bearing different identities.
4. A specific query was put by this Tribunal to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether there existed any material to show that either of the two candidates had actually appeared in the examination by impersonation.
4.1 In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record communication/e- mail dated 27.04.2026, wherein it has been stated therein that neither of the two candidates had appeared in the examination. However, it is stated therein that:
"The allegation of impersonation has been duly verified from the application data submitted by both candidates, namely Sh. Aryan (Roll No. 2002025674) and Sh. Shahdab Ali (Roll No. 2201334226), wherein a single individual has pretended to hold two different identities by uploading the same photograph in two different applications."
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 8 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4)
5. In counter reply, learned counsel for the respondents highlights vide Para(s) 4, 5 and 6 which are as under:-
"4. That, kind attention is invited to Clause 15.2 of Para 15 of the Notice dated 18.01.2023, which stipulates as under:
"The Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of written examination and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally."
Further, Clause 20.1 of Para 20 of the Notice dated 18.01.2023 stipulates as under:
"If candidates are found to indulge at any stage in any of the malpractices listed below during the conduct of examination or thereafter, their candidature for this examination will be cancelled and they will be debarred from the examinations of the Commission for the period mentioned below:
Debarment Sl. No. Type of Malpractice Period Taking away any examination related material such as Rough Sheets, Commission
1. Copy of Admission Certificate, Answer Sheet etc. from the examination hall or passing 2 Years it on to unauthorized persons during the conduct of examination.
2. Leaving the examination uninformed during the examination. 2 Years Misbehaving, intimidating or threatening in any manner with the examination
3. functionaries i.e. Supervisor, Invigilator, Security Guard, Commission's representatives 3 Years etc. or Venue staff.
Obstruct the conduct of examination / instigate other candidates not to take the
4. 3 Years examination.
Making statements which are incorrect or false, suppressing material information,
5. 3 Years submitting fabricated documents, etc. Obtaining support / influence for his candidature by any irregular or improper means in
6. 3 Years connection with his candidature.
7. Possession of Mobile Phone either in "switched on" or "switched off" mode. 3 Years
8. Appearing in the same examination more than once in contravention of the rules. 3 Years A candidate who is also working on examination related matters in the same
9. 3 Years examination.
10. Damaging examination related infrastructure / equipment. 5 Years
11. Appearing in the examination with forged Admit Card, identity proof, etc. 5 Years
12. Possession of fire arms / weapons during the examination. 5 Years Assault, use of force, causing bodily harm in any manner to the examination
13. functionaries i.e. Supervisor, Invigilator, Security Guard, Commission's representatives 7 Years etc. Threatening / intimidating Commission's examination functionaries with weapons / fire
14. 7 Years arms.
Using unfair means in the examination hall like copying from unauthorized sources
15. 7 Years such as written material on any paper or body parts, etc. Possession of Bluetooth Devices, spy cameras, or any other electronic gadgets in the
16. 7 Years examination hall.
17. Impersonate / Procuring impersonation by any person. 7 Years PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 9 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) Debarment Sl. No. Type of Malpractice Period
18. Taking snapshots, making videos of question papers or examination material, labs, etc. 7 Years Sharing examination terminal through remote desktop software / Apps / LAN / WAN,
19. 7 Years etc. Attempt to hack or manipulate examination servers, data and examination systems at
20. 7 Years any point before, during or after the examination.
Further, Clause 20.2 of Para 20 of the Notice dated 18.01.2023 stipulates as under:
"The Commission may also report the matter to Police / Investigating Agencies, as deemed fit. Commission may also take appropriate action to get the matter examined by the authorities / forensic experts, etc."
Copy of Advertisement / Notice dated 18.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R/1.
5. That after receiving Application Data (Photo & other details), the Commission conducts software analysis of application photographs of candidates to zero in on the same / similar photographs on account of morphing or mixing of photographs of different persons. This exercise is undertaken to eliminate malpractice and maintain the sanctity of the examination. Further, with the use of software, human interference is ruled out or kept to the bare minimum in such examination process.
6. That on the basis of software analysis report, the Commission issues Show Cause Notices to such candidates, including the Applicant, who are found involved in malpractice / impersonation and, on the basis of their reply, their cases are revisited and accordingly their claims are either accepted or rejected. If their claims are accepted, they are allowed to appear in the next stage(s) of examination. Otherwise, as per the penal procedure of the Commission, their candidature for the examination is cancelled and they are debarred from the recruitment examinations of the Commission for the prescribed period. Similarly, if a candidate who is found involved in such malpractice does not furnish any reply within the stipulated time period, it is presumed that he / she has nothing to say with regard to the allegations levelled against him / her and, therefore, his / her candidature is rejected and he / she is debarred from the examinations of the Commission for 07 years in cases involving impersonation."
6. The applicant, in rejoinder, has denied the averments made in the counter reply and reiterated that he has been falsely implicated in a case of impersonation and arbitrarily debarred for seven years without any cogent evidence or fair opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that it was mistakenly uploaded the applicant's photograph and signature in another candidate's application as well. The applicant PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 10 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) submits that the same IP address in both applications clearly indicates that the error occurred at the cyber café level and was not attributable to any deliberate act on his part. It is further submitted that the applicant never appeared in the said examination and, therefore, no case of actual impersonation is made out. The applicant contends that the show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 was only sent through e- mail and was never served physically, due to which he could not respond within time, particularly as he was not accustomed to regularly checking e-mails. Upon learning of the debarment on 27.01.2025 while downloading his admit card for Constable (GD) Examination, 2025, the applicant immediately submitted a representation explaining the true facts, but the same was not considered by the respondents. It is thus contended that the respondents have debarred the applicant merely on suspicion, without proof of actual impersonation, thereby seriously prejudicing his career. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of Sumit Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. SSC in OA No. 3057/2017 decided on 10.08.2018 to submit that in absence of proven impersonation or unfair means, such harsh penal PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 11 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) consequences are unsustainable in law. Relevant portion of the said OA is extracted herein below:-
"17. The respondents must be sensitive to the fact that they are dealing with careers of young aspirants and if the lapse committed by the candidates does not come in the category of impersonation, cheating or use of unfair means etc., he/she should not be so harshly penalized. A mechanical or myopic application of instructions has to be avoided at all cost especially when such non- conformity of instructions is clearly procedural and not pertaining to any allegation of malpractice or unfair means."
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Analysis:
8.1 For proper adjudication of the present OA, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the show cause notice dated 23.12.2023, which reads as under:--
"SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Mr./Ms. ARYAN, S/O MANOJ KUMAR R/O VILLAGE PEER KHERA POST-JHINJINANA TEHSIL-UNN, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, 247773 had applied for Multi-Tasking (Non- Technical) Staff, and Havaldar (CHIC & CBN) Examination, 2022 bearing registration no. 30005114074 and roll no. 2002025674.
2. Whereas the Commission has found that the Application Photo of Mr./Ms. ARYAN is a match with the Application Photo of candidates(s), bearing registration no(s) 30004134357 and roll no.(s) 2201334226 respectively
3. Whereas as per para 20.1 of the Notice of the said examination, if a candidate impersonates / procures impersonation by any person/is found indulged in any type of malpractice in the examination, his candidature for the examination will be cancelled and he will be debarred from the examination of the Commission for a period of 7 (Seven) years.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 12 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4)
4. From the data of application submitted by you for subject exam, it appears that your photograph is matching with photographs of other applicants for the subject exam with different registration number (Please check with the attachment).
5. Whereas the above practice shows that Mr./Ms. ARYAN with registration no. 30005114074 and roll no. 2002025674 has tried malpractice by the way of procuring impersonation or has been found to be trying himself/herself to impersonate for other candidates in the Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff, and Havaldar (CBIC & CBN) Examination, 2022.
6. Now therefore, Mr./Ms. ARYAN with registration no.30005114074 and roll No. 2002025674 is hereby given an opportunity to show cause within 10 days from the date of issue of this Notice as to why he/she should not be debarred from appearing in Commission's examinations. Further, explanation needs to be submitted by candidate as to why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him, considering his/her act of impersonation, in which he/she is indulged. It may be noted that reply to this Show Cause Notice must be send in physical form & by post only to SSC (NR) on the address mentioned in this mail. Besides, no correspondence should be done from your side through e-
mail.
7. If Mr./Ms. ARYAN with registration no.30005114074 and roll No. 2002025674 fails to respond to this Notice within the time limit as specified, he/she will be debarred from appearing in the Commission's examinations in accordance with the provisions of the Notice of the said examination.
8. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority." 8.2 Based on the aforesaid show-cause notice, the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 came to be passed, cancelling the candidature of the applicant and debarring him for a period of seven years. 8.3 In Vijay Singh Vs. State (2012) 5 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Apex court held as under:
"10. The Authority has to act or purport to act in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the Statute or Statutory Rules. (The Poona City Municipal PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 13 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) Corporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodhar, AIR 1965 SC 555; The Municipal Corporation, Indore v. Niyamatulla (dead) by his Legal representatives, AIR 1971 SC 97; J.N. Ganatra v. Morvi Municipality, Morvi, AIR 1996 SC 2520; and Borosil Glass Works Ltd. Employees Union v. D.D. Bambode & Ors., AIR 2001 SC
378).
11. The issue involved herein is required to be examined from another angle also. Holding departmental proceedings and recording a finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing the punishment for the same is a quasi-judicial function and not administrative one.
(Vide: Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 539; and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC142). Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory rules under which punishment is to be imposed. The disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said rules. Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant.
14. The present case shows dealing with the most serious issues without any seriousness and sincerity. Integrity means soundness of moral principle or character, fidelity, honesty, free from every biasing or corrupting influence or motive and a character of uncorrupted virtue. It is synonymous with probity, purity, uprightness rectitude, sinlessness and sincerity. The charge of negligence, inadvertence or unintentional acts would not culminate into the case of doubtful integrity. Withholding integrity merely does not cause stigma, rather makes the person liable to face very serious consequences. (Vide: Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3753).
15. Unfortunately, a too trivial matter had been dragged unproportionately which has caused so much problems to the appellant. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the alleged delinquency would fall within the ambit of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings could be initiated. It is settled legal proposition that the vagaries of the employer to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant rules is nonetheless a misconduct (M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut & Ors., AIR PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 14 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) 1984 SC 505; and A.L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361). 16. Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed. Principle enshrined in Criminal Jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in legal maxim nulla poena sine lege which means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3196, this Court has held that a person cannot be tried for an alleged offence unless the Legislature has made it punishable by law and it falls within the offence as defined under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 2(n) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, or Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The same analogy can be drawn in the instant case though the matter is not criminal in nature. Thus, in view of the above, the punishment order is not maintainable in the eyes of law."
8.4 The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nilesh Ramachandra Japthap vs State Of Kerala in CRL. MC No. 2110 of 2024 decided on 3 April, 2024 held that:
"6. Section 416 IPC reads as follows: A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. 7. The dictionary meaning of the term personate is to pretend to be another person or assume the character of or act the part of. For the offence to be attracted, it is not enough that a person merely pretends to be some other person as mere impersonation is not an offence. The offence is attracted only when, along with the impersonation, the accused indulges in cheating. Section 415 IPC defines cheating. Thus, in order to constitute the offence of cheating by impersonation, apart from pretending to be some other person, the accused should have (i) deceived a person fraudulently or dishonestly, (ii) the person so deceived should have been induced to deliver any property to any person or should have been intentionally induced to do or omit to do something which he would not have omitted to do if he was not so deceived, and (iii) in cases covered by the latter part of the above clause (ii) the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 15 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
8. The offence of cheating by impersonation occurs only when, due to the impersonation, some damage or harm to body, mind, reputation, or property takes place or is likely to take place. In other words, the accused must have, by the act of impersonation, obtained some property or induced the aggrieved to do or omit to do something that would have caused damage or harm to his mind, body, reputation, or property.
9. In the decision in Ram Jas v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 740] it was observed that the conviction for an offence under section 419 IPC substantively can be justified only if the facts proved constitute all the ingredients of the offence of cheating. In the said case, an Oath Commissioner was induced to attest the affidavit by wrong identification of the affiant by the accused. The Supreme Court held that there was no likelihood of any damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property, so that the Oath Commissioner was never cheated."
8.5 After examining the actions taken by the respondents, as detailed in the aforementioned show-cause notice, it appears that the applicant has been accused of engaging in malpractice or utilizing unfair methods within the recruitment process, specifically through impersonation. Interestingly, impersonation is not explicitly defined within the RRs, the advertisement's terms, or any regulations governing the administration of competitive examinations. However, clause 20.1 of the advertisement indicates that impersonation falls under the category of malpractice or constitutes the use of unfair means. It is, it is an offense of its own.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 16 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) 8.6 The advertisement fails to define the term 'offence'. Indian law provides several definitions for 'offence', as follows:
"Cr PC Section 2 (n)"offence" means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).
General Clause Act Section 3 (29) "Indian law" shall mean any Act, Ordinance, Regulation, rule, order, bye-law or other instrument which before the commencement of the Constitution, had the force of law in any Province of India or part thereof, or thereafter has the force of law in any Part A State or Part C State or Part thereof, but does not include any Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or any Order in Council, rule or other instrument made under such Act;
Section 3 (38) "Offence" shall mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force;
Section 3 (50) "Regulation" shall mean a Regulation made by the President 2[under article 240 of the Constitution and shall include a Regulation made by the President under article 243 thereof and] a Regulation made by the Central Government under the Government of India Act, 1870, or the Government of India Act, 1915, or the Government of India Act, 1935; Indian Penal Code Section 40. "Offence".--Except in the 2[Chapters] and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence" denotes a thing made punishable by this Code. In Chapter IV, 3[Chapter VA] and in the following sections, namely, sections 4[64, 65, 66, 5[67], 71], 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117,6[118, 119 and 120] 187, 194, 195, 203, 211, 213, 214, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 347, 348, 388, 389 and 445, the word "offence" denotes a thing punishable under this Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined. And in sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216 and 441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.] Section 41. 'A "special law" is a law applicable to a particular subject.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 17 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) Section 42. "Local law " is a law applicable only to a particular part of 7[8***9[India]] 8.7 The nearest definition of personation under Indian law can be gauged under Section 205 or 416 IPC which reads as under :-
"Section 205 - False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution.--Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The offence is bailable, non- cognizable,triable by a magistrate first class , and non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr PC.
Section 416. Cheating by personation.--A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Explanation.--The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or an imaginary person.
The punishment for personation is prescribed under Section 419, which reads :-
Section 419. Punishment for cheating by personation.-- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The offence under Section 416 IPC is bailable, cognizable,triable by a magistrate, and compoundable under Section 320 Cr PC.
8.8 Does the provision or term within the advertisement, specifically pertaining to "debarment," adequately satisfy the PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 18 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) mandatory requirement to clearly articulate the proposed action, in strict adherence to the Rule of Law?
8.9 The meaning of word ―debarment‖ in Collins dictionary given in the act or process of excluding someone from a place, a right, etc. Definition of debar verb from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary to officially prevent somebody from doing something, joining something, etc. Cambridge dictonary defines' debar ―To stop someone from doing something by law or by official agreement.
8.10 In reversing the district court's summary judgment for appellant, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that absent regulations establishing standards and procedures governing debarment and absent notice, hearing, and findings in this case, the debarment is invalid (Gonzales v. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir.
1964). It was contended on behalf of appellant that the debarment is invalid for four reasons:-
1. Debarment is not authorized by statute or by regulation.
2. Debarment was imposed without rules or regulations specifying grounds for debarment and establishing a procedure for debarment.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 19 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4)
3. Debarment was imposed without notice of charges relied upon and without a meaningful opportunity to meet and refute charges.
4. Debarment of appellants was a denial of due process.
8.11 In his concurring opinion in Hannah v. Larche Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960). Id. at 487-88, Justice Frankfurter explicitly set forth the test of adequate procedural safeguards. ―The precise nature of the interest alleged to be adversely affected or of the freedom of action claimed to be curtailed, the manner in which this is to be done and the reasons for doing it, the balance of individual hurt and the justifying public good-these and such like are the considerations, avowed or implicit, that determine the judicial judgment when appeal is made to "due process." 8.12 The question whether a particular body was exercising legislative, administrative, or judicial, or quasi -judicial functions has to be determined in the light of the statute under which it was constituted, and an administrative body functioning as such can also be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. The test would be whether it had to decide on evidence and decide judicially. So judged, there could be no doubt that the Wage Board under the impugned Act was PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 20 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity. Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, [1958] S.C.R. 1240 6.12 in J. K. Iron And Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur V. The Iron And Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur.1955(2) SCR 1315, while dealing with the powers of the Tribunals, it was observed ―Their powers are derived from the statute that creates them and they have to function within the limits imposed there and to act according to its provisions. Those provisions invest them with many of the "trappings' of a court and deprive them of arbitrary or absolute discretion and power.‖ Further, it was observed; Benevolent despotism is foreign to a democratic Constitution. when the Constitution of India converted this country into a sovereign, democratic republic, it did not invest it with the mere trappings of democracy, but invested it with the real thing. the true kernel of which is the ultimate authority of the courts to restrain all exercise of absolute and arbitrary power not only by the executive, and officials and lesser tribunals but also by the legislatures and even by Parliament itself. The Constitution established a "Rule of Law"" in this land and that carries with it restraints and restrictions that are foreign to despotic power. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 21 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) 8.13 In Bidi Supply Co. V. The Union Of India And Others. 1956(1) SCR 267, it was held as under:-
"The power of transfer can only be conferred if it is hedged round with reasonable restrictions, the absence or existence of which can in the last instance be determined by the courts; and the exercise of the power must be in conformity with the rules of natural justice, that is to say, the parties affected must be heard when that is reasonably possible, and the reasons for the order must be reduced, however briefly, to writing so that men may know that the powers conferred on these quasi judicial bodies are being justly and properly exercised."
8.14 In New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. V. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. 1957(1) SCR 98, The decision of the House of Lords in the well-known case of Board of Education v. Rice([1885] A. C. 179, 182 was considered. Their Lordships in that case had to discuss the duty of the Board of Education under s.7 of the Education Act, 1902. Lord Loreburn, L.C., in the course of his speech referred to the provisions of the Act and made the following observations as to the duty to decide certain questions :- "Comparatively recent statutes have extended, if they have not originated, the practice of imposing upon departments or officers of State the duty of deciding or determining questions of various kinds. In the present instance, as in many others, what comes for determination is sometimes a matter to be settled by discretion, involving no law. It will, I suppose, usually be of an administrative kind; but sometimes it will involve matter PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 22 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) of law as well as matter of fact, or even depend upon matter of law alone. In such cases, the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon every one who decides anything. But I do not think they are bound to treat such a question as though it were a trial. They have no power to administer an oath, and need not examine witnesses. They can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view.‖ 8.15 The Court also held that the rules of natural justice apply not only to quasi-judicial proceedings but also to certain administrative proceedings. (A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150) 8.16 In Board Of High School & Intermediate Education, U. P., Vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others. 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 36, it was held as under:-
"Before the Committee decides to award any penalty it has to come to an objective determination on certain facts and only when it comes to the conclusion that those facts are established that it can proceed to punish the examinee concerned. The facts which the Committee has to find before it takes action are whether the examinee has concealed any fact or made a false PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 23 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) statement in his application form; or (ii) whether the examinee has made a breach of the Rules and Regulations to secure under admission to an examination ; or (iii) whether the examinee has used unfair means at the examination ; or (iv) whether the examinee has committed fraud (including impersonation) at the examination ; or (v) whether the examinee is guilty of moral offence or indiscipline. Until one or other of the five facts is established before the Committee, it cannot proceed to take action under. In order to come to the conclusion that one or other of these facts is established, the Committee will have to depend upon materials placed before it, for in the very nature of things it has no personal knowledge in the matter. It was held that the inference whether the authority acting under a statute, where it is silent, has the duty to act judicially will depend on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of disposal provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the persons affected and other indicia afforded by the statute. The mere fact that the Act in question or the relevant Regulations do not make it obligatory on the Committee to call for an explanation and to bear the examinee is not conclusive on the question whether the Committee acts as a quasi-judicial body when exercising its powers under Ch. VI, r. 1 (1), of the Regulations."
8.17 In Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105, it was held as under:
"16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as "civil death" of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts."
8.18 In Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Western Telecom Project BSNL &Ors. (2014) 14 SC 731, it was held as under:-
"Suffice it to say that „debarment‟ is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 24 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the „debarment‟ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor."
The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra) stipulates that the debarring officer, while passing an order of debarment, has to take into account the actual or potential harm or impact of the wrong doing and further the frequency of the incidence or duration of wrong doing.
8.19 In UMC Technologies Private Limited v. Food Corporation of India and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551 to submit that show- cause notice must indicate the proposed action and in the show-cause notice in question, there being no indication of the proposed action of imposing penalty, the order imposing penalty remains patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. It was held that:-
"25. The mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show cause notice. The Corporation‟s notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice to black list, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated 10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show cause notice for blacklisting. In our view, the order of PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 25 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed beyond the bounds of the show cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated
09.01.2019 cannot be sustained."
8.20 Recently, from Kranti Associates Private Limited v Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, to Manoj Kumar Khokhar v State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501, the law has clearly established that courts and even quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons for their decisions. Needless to add, ‗Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless.‖ (Civil Appeal No.1527 Of 2022-Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Versus Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Profession Of Acil Limited & Anr decided on 21.11.2023) 8.21 In Civil Appeal No. 13919 Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No.8026 Of 2024) Basudev Dutta Versus The State Of West Bengal & Ors. dated 5.12.2024, in para 12.6 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"It is manifestly clear from the above judgments that reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed; if any document is relied upon to form the basis of enquiry, such document must be furnished to the employee; it is only then a meaningful reply can be furnished; and the failure to furnish the documents referred and relied in the notice would vitiate the entire proceedings as being arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and before taking any adverse decision, the aggrieved person must be given an opportunity of personal hearing."
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 26 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) 8.22 Is it permissible to disqualify an individual for a duration that exceeds the maximum period stipulated under the IPC or any other Indian legislation, especially in the absence of compelling and credible counter-evidence, and particularly when their candidature in the specific instance has already been dismissed or revoked? While the prosecution's argument "could be true," it does not necessarily imply it "must be true," and there exists a substantial distinction between what "may be" and what "must be." (Criminal Appeal No. 1864 Of 2024 [Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No. 3788 Of 2022] -Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar Versus The State Of Karnataka 2026 INSC
417).
8.23 When determining the sufficiency of evidence, authorities should evaluate the volume of available information, the credibility of the evidence, whether significant allegations are corroborated, and what reasonable conclusions can be drawn. This assessment must involve inspecting fundamental documents, inspection reports, and correspondence. In Horne Brothers, Inc. v. Laird, 463 F.2d 1268, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1972), the court explained that "adequate evidence" is not necessarily the standard required for a successful criminal prosecution or a formal debarment. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 27 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) It can be compared to the probable cause needed for an arrest, a search warrant, or a preliminary hearing. While this standard is less rigorous than what must be presented at trial, it must certainly surpass mere uncorroborated suspicion or accusation.
8.24 At present, we observe an absence of explicit guidelines or regulations beyond Clause 20.1, which clearly establishes that quasi-judicial power is bestowed upon the debarring officer. Such guidelines should be formally documented for the purpose of debarring a candidate for malpractice by the official respondents. This officer is obligated to assess malpractices or unfair means strictly by adhering to due process of law and incorporating adequate statutory provisions.
8.25 The central question is whether clause 20.1 of the advertisement can be interpreted as an Indian law, falling within the scope and definition of Section 3 (29) of the General Clauses Act, which encompasses Acts, ordinances, regulations, rules, orders, bye-laws, or other instruments. It is conceivable, though perhaps a stretch, that clause 20.1 of the advertisement could be deemed an "other instrument." PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 28 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) Nevertheless, whether it holds the status of a statutory instrument warrants further consideration. 8.26 Another consideration is whether the terms and conditions of the advertisement could impose penalties on any candidate who surpasses the maximum duration of punishment outlined by Indian statute, potentially infringing upon an individual's constitutional rights. For instance, under either Section 205 or 419, the most severe penalty allowed is imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both.
8.27 Under the present circumstances, the debarment lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis, aside from any analytical report that has not been made part of the official record. This is especially true given that the implicated individual did not even sit for the examination, and the alleged other candidate also did not take part in the process. Consequently, no harm or injury has arisen from this unfortunate incident, rendering the issue of impersonation entirely irrelevant 8.28 The foundation of the impugned order is the allegation that the photograph uploaded by the applicant matched with that of another candidate in a separate application. The respondents have invoked Para 20.1 of the examination PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 29 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) notice to justify the penalty of seven-year debarment. However, it is evident that Para 20.1 is only a general clause and despite repeated opportunities and specific directions issued by this Tribunal, the respondents failed to identify the precise category of malpractice applicable to the case of the applicant. More importantly, the respondents themselves have admitted in their additional affidavit that neither the applicant nor the other candidate actually appeared in the examination. Therefore, the allegation of actual impersonation in the examination stands unsubstantiated. No material has been placed on record to establish appearance in the examination under false identity, procurement of impersonation, use of unfair means, or any overt act constituting examination malpractice. The entire case of the respondents rests solely on an inference drawn from matching photographs in two separate applications. Mere suspicion arising from matching photographs, in the absence of actual appearance in the examination or any corroborative evidence, cannot constitute conclusive proof of impersonation. Debarment for seven years carries grave civil consequences, and such drastic action must necessarily rest on strict proof supported by cogent and reliable material. In the present case, such proof is wholly absent. At best, the PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:02:10+05'30' 30 OA 1403/2025 Item No. 51(C-4) material on record discloses an irregularity in the application data, which by itself, in the absence of proven impersonation or fraud in the examination, cannot justify the extreme penalty imposed upon the applicant. The impugned action is, therefore, disproportionate, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
9. Conclusion:
9.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 09.04.2024 is set aside and quashed.
9.2 Accordingly, the present OA is allowed to aforesaid extent.
9.3 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand allowed. No order as to costs.
(Dr Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pinky/
PINKY PINKY YADAV
2026.04.30
YADAV 18:02:10+05'30'