Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sushil Kaushik vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 17 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 3389/2010 New Delhi, this the 17th day of August, 2011 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Shri Sushil Kaushik, S/o Shri Satbir Kaushik, R/o VPO Dhansa, New Delhi-73. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) V E R S U S 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Through the Chief Secretary, 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Chairman, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, F-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area, Delhi-110092. 3. The Director General (Prisons), GNCT of Delhi, Tihar, New Delhi. ..Respondents (By Advocate : Shri B.N.P. Pathak) ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 27.9.2010 (page 11) whereby he has been debarred from appearing in any examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB) for a period of next 5 years on the ground that he had indulged in the misconduct of procuring impersonation as indicated in Para (11) sub-para (3) of Section-C of the said advertisement dated 7-13th June, 2008 for the post of Warder in the office of the Director General of Prisons under post code 13/08. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to immediately declare the result of the applicant as a selected candidate and to process his case for appointment as Warder in the Government of NCT of Delhi with all consequential benefits. He has further prayed that if deemed necessary, the opinion of handwriting expert from any Government Institute like FSL, CFSL etc. may be obtained.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he had applied for the post of Warder against post code No.13/08 in response to an advertisement issued by DSSSB dated 7-13/6/2008. Since he fulfilled all the qualifications, he appeared in the written test and having been selected in the written test, was called for Physical Examination Test to be conducted on 24.2.2010.
3. The final result was issued in May, 2010. However, result of the applicant was kept pending. The specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impression of the applicant were taken and he was also asked to orally answer the questions which he had attempted in the written examination. When nothing was heard, he moved an application under RTI which revealed that his result has been withheld as his specimen signature/handwriting obtained from him by team of Deputy Secretaries were not found matching with the signature/handwriting as appearing in admit card/answer sheet, thus it was a case of mismatch identity. Being aggrieved, applicant gave a detailed representation stating therein that he had appeared and qualified in various competitive exams like Delhi Police Constable (2007), Haryana Police Sub-Inspector (2008), CPO (SSC) 2008 Sub-Inspectors, CPO (SSC) 2009-Sub-Inspector, Combined Graduate Level (SSC) 2010, CDS Exam 2008 (1) (UPSC), CDS Exam 2009 (2) (UPSC) and CDS Exam 2010 (1) UPSC. The applicant has specifically stated in para 4.7 of the OA that in the instant selection, he has himself appeared and was selected. In case of doubt opinion of handwriting expert may be taken to sort out the controversy. In any case, he could not have been debarred from taking the examination for 5 years without even informing him the actual reason of mismatch. He has thus prayed that the OA may be allowed.
4. Respondents have stated applicant was a candidate for the post of Warder in the Department of Prisons, Government of NCT of Delhi in selection processed by the Board under post code No.13/08. As per result in the notice dated 26.02.2010, his name appeared in the select list but his selection to the post was subsequently cancelled vide corrigendum dated 04.10.2010 because during verification of genuineness of his candidature for the post, the facts about his indulgence in misconduct in written examination for procuring impersonation, came into notice.
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 in the dossiers of candidates indicated in pending list etc., the Board took a decision to get examined genuineness of candidature of 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 notice dated 26.02.2010, were called in Board office for verification of candidature etc.
6. They have further explained that after obtaining samples of handwriting/signature/thumb impression from the candidates, the Committee had examined handwriting/signatures/thumb impressions of the candidates with respect to the exam. related records and furnished their report. As per report of the Committee, applicants name was indicated in the list of candidates whose signature/handwriting was not found matching with the exam. related documents. That on consideration of the report of the Committee, the Board took a decision to debar the applicant from appearing in any examination conducted by the Board for next 5 (Five) years and simultaneously cancelled his candidature for the post. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings also.
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 not 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 applicant 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 him 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 in the case of applicant; whether it was with regard to his hand writing, 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 matter 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 the applicant knows his fate.
9. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DR. A.K. MISHRA) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh