Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S/O Sh. Mahavir Singh vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.1297/2014 With OA NO.2185/2014 OA NO.3021/2014 OA NO.3126/2014 OA NO.3147/2014 OA NO.3152/2014 OA NO.3166/2014 MA NO.2717/2014 MA NO.2718/2014 OA NO.3242/2014 OA NO.3248/2014 OA NO.3271/2014 OA NO.3303/2014 OA NO.3320/2014 OA NO.3334/2014 OA NO.3335/2014 OA NO.3339/2014 OA NO.3432/2014 OA NO.3439/2014 OA NO.3440/2014 OA NO.3456/2014 OA NO.3597/2014 OA NO.3896/2014 & OA NO.3912/2014 NEW DELHI THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 HONBLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE MR. RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) OA No.1297/2014 Ajay (2201539566), S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, H.No.1172, Near Syndicate Bank, Kanjhawala Road, Bawana, Delhi-110039. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhyay and Mr. Manish Kumar) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3339/2014 Nivedita, Age-23 yrs. Roll No.3013020317 D/o Sh. Vijay, R/o Flat No.315, Pocket-2, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi-75. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (CR), Govt. of India, 21-23 Lowther Road, Allahabad-211002. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, South Block, New Delhi-1. 4. The Controller General of Defense Account, Ministry of Defense, Office of the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-10. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3896/2014 Sushil Kumar, S/o Sh. Jaibir Singh, Roll No.2201076802, Age 28 years, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Vill Post Mavikalan, Near Aminagar Sarai, Bhagpat, U.P.-250606. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Head, SSC (HQRS), Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3439/2014 Anurag Kumar, S/o Sh. Pradeep Singh, Age 24 years, Roll No.3011504024, R/o Vill + Post Lohadda, The- Baraut, Dist-Bagpat, Pin 250611. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Head, SSC (HQRS), Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3432/2014 Sandeep, Age-27 years S/o Sh. Rameshwar, 980/26, West Ram Nagar, Main Dahiya Chowk, Sonepat, Haryana-131000. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, Nouth Block, New Delhi-1. 4. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3597/2014 Jitesh, Age 26 years, S/o Sh. Pushpender Singh, R/o VPO Beri Pana Baithyan, Ward No.13, Near ITI, Tehsil Beri, Jhajjar, Haryana-124201. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Tanvi Talwar for Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. The Controller General Through its Controller General of Defense Account, Ministry of Defence, Office of the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi Cantt-10. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Headquarters, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Director, Northern Region, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3912/2014 Deepak Kumar Chahal, S/o Sh. Hansraj Singh, Roll No.2201032628, Age 25 years, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o Hans Medical Agency, Near Thana Chauraha, Gajraula, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, U.P.-244235. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Head, SSC (HQRS), Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3271/2014 Harkesh, S/o Sh. Rajender Singh R/o Vill. Malikpur, P.O. Achhej, Tehsil-Beri, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Tanvi Talwar for Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Headquarters, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Director, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3248/2014 Amit, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Tejpal Singh, H.No.518/29, Old Quarter, Model Town, C.R. Polytechnic, Rohtak, Haryana (124001). Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Nouth Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3147/2014 Deepak Kumar, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Sharvan Singh, H.No.174, Near Om Shanti Bhawan Garhi Panna, VPO- Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Nouth Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3152/2014 Rajesh Kumar, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Prem Singh, VPO- Bajana Kalan, The- Ganaur, Sonepat, Haryana-131102. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Nouth Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3456/2014 Sombir Kumar, Age 27 years, S/o Sh. Basant Raj, R/o Village Sundrehti, PO Sasroli, Tehsil Matanhail, Jhajjar, Haryana-124106. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Tanvi Talwar for Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. The Controller General Through its Controller General of Defense Account, Ministry of Defence, Office of the CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi Cantt-10. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, Headquarters, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Director, Northern Region, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3126/2014 Sandeep Rana, Age-26 years S/o Sh. Bijender Rana, House No.262, Siraspur, New Delhi-110 042. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3021/2014 Pradeep Kumar, Age-26 years, S/o Sh. Rajender R/o Village Sundrethi, Tehsil Matanhail, Distt. Jhajjar, State Haryana-124106. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Tanvi Talwar for Mr. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Headquarters, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Director, Northern Region, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.2185/2014 Varun Vashishth (2201015016), Age 27 years, S/o Sh. Sita Ram Vashisth, H.No.362, Vill PO-Hareveli, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Harish Pandey, Mr. Mayank Upadhyay and Mr. Manish Kumar) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3303/2014 Deepak Kumar, S/o Sh. Bhale Ram, Roll No.2201034199, Age 27, Subject Appointment, R/o H.No.1146, Sector-23, Sonipat, Haryana. Pin-131003. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3320/2014 Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Partap Singh, Roll No.2201527311, Age 25, Subject Appointment, R/o 1/52, Copper India, Street No.3, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3334/2014 Amit Sharma, Age-27 years S/o Sh. Mukesh Sharma, R/o Begmabad Uncha Bakhal, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201204. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3335/2014 Naveen Saroha, Age-25 years S/o Sh. Jagbir, Vill-Harsana (Pandit Chopal), Tehsil Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3. Union of India Through the 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.3440/2014 Dinesh Kumar, Age 27 years, S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Roll No.2201518510, Group C, Subject Appointment, R/o H.No.34, Model Town, Hansi, Hissar, Haryana-125022. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commision, Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Head, SSC (HQRS), Through the Chairman, S.S.C, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3242/2014 Kuldeep Sharma, S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, Roll No.2201008663, Age 27, Subject Appointment, R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Ganaur, Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission, Through its Chairman, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. The Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3166/2014 MA NO.2717/2014 MA NO.2718/2014 1. Ravi Panwar (2201012925) Aged about 28 years, S/o Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh Panwar R/o C-40, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009. 2. Ashish (2201078975) Aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Mahesh Pal R/o I-740, East Jawahar Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201102. 3. Rakesh Sharma (2201117635) Aged about 25 years, S/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o H.No.145, Shyam Baba Chowk, Khera Khurd, North West, Delhi-110082. 4. Vinay Chaudhary (2201514490) Aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Tomar R/o H.No.460, Street No.8, Durga Puri Extn., Shahdara, Delhi-110093. 5. Amit Kumar Dhama (2201083603) Aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Rajbeer Singh Dhama R/o Village Bhetahari Pur, Distt. Ghaziabad, Post Loni, State U.P. (201102). 6. Prikshit Tomar (2201130332) Aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Vatandra Singh, R/o VPO Ishlampur, Ghasoli, Prabudh Nagar, U.P. 247775. 7. Manjeet Kumar (2201554303) Aged about 28 years, S/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o 522-A, Near Shilla Mandir, VPO Alipur, Delhi-110036. 8. Deepender Kumar Ahlawat (2201545011), S/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar Ahlawat R/o Flat No.2A, Pocket-F, Mayur Vihar, Phase-IInd Delhi -110091. 9. Krishan Kumar (2201091227) Aged about 24 years, S/o Sh. Surender Singh R/o VPO Siana Distt. Mahender Garh Tehsil Kanina 123027. 10. Yogendra Ruhal (2201525366) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Bhim Singh Ruhal R/o H.No.7300, VPO Bankner Narela, Delhi-110040. 11. Ompal (2201027543) Aged about 28 years, S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh R/o VPO Kheri Fadh, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana 124001. 12. Gaurav (2201531569) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Jitender R/o Ward No.14, VPO Sampla, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana-124501. 13. Paramjeet (2201561551) Aged about 25 years, S/o Sh. Krishan R/o VPO Nonond, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana 124501. 14. Ashok Kumar (2201120928) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Kapoor, R/o Dhanirwas, P.O. Salhawas, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124140. 15. Parvesh Dagar (2201120854) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh R/o VPO Matanhail, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124106. 16. Sonu Kumar (2201086240) Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Virendra Singh, R/o Vill. Daulat Pur Post Mansur Pur, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. 251203. 17. Manjeet (2201066635) Aged about 26 years, C/o Satya Prakash Kalan, R/o H.No.131 Gahri Pana, VPO Bakhtawar Pur, Delhi-36. 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-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block-12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Arif) :ORDER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
OA No.1297/2014 along with other connected OAs i.e. OA Nos.2185/2014, 3021/2014, 3126/2014, 3147/2014, 3152/2014, 3166/2014 with MA NO.2717/2014, MA NO.2718/2014, 3242/2014, 3248/2014, 3271/2014, 3303/2014, 3320/2014, 3334/2014, 3335/2014, 3339/2014, 3432/2014, 3439/2014, 3440/2014, 3456/2014, 3597/2014, 3896/2014 and 3912/2014 have been taken up together because learned counsel for both parties submitted that the issues related in these OAs are identical and so are the reliefs sought by the applicants in all these OAs.
2. Learned counsel for the parties also submitted that common arguments would be made both on behalf of the applicants as well as respondents in these OAs. For the purpose of pleadings and documents on record, OA No.1297/2014 was adopted as a lead case because the matters are identical and the applicants are similarly situated. Issues involved and reliefs sought being virtually common, counsel for the applicants submitted that all the applicants in these OAs are aggrieved by the alleged, arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents in not declaring them selected for appointment on the basis of their merit in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 and in spite of having secured more marks than the last selected candidate. It was also submitted that the applicants are further aggrieved by the action of the respondents in initiating action again them for cancellation of the candidature and for non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal by way of the arbitrary and discriminatory show cause notice dated 15.01.2014.
3. The reliefs sought by the applicants in the lead OA, which are akin to the connected OAs, are reproduced below:-
i) Quash and set aside the impugned Notice dated 15.01.2014 and withholding his result as well as any kind of action on the basis of impugned Notice is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
ii) Direct the respondents to declare the Applicant as selected as per their merit list and to issue appointment letter of the Applicant with the seniority from the date of appointment of first candidate of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012.
iii) Any further Order as this Honble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. At the outset, we find that two MAs have been filed in the connected OAs.
MA No.2717/2014 has been filed in OA No.3166/2014 for joining together. For the reasons stated in the MA No.2717/2014, the same is allowed.
MA No.2718/2014 has been filed making the following prayer:-
In view of above stated facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to exempt the filing of handwritten and dim documents/annexures.
Pass any other order as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above. In view of the fact that the connected OAs contain many of the documents, the exemption is granted as prayed for. MA No.2718/2014 is allowed.
5. A copy of the show cause notice in the lead OA dated 15.01.2014 is annexed to the OA as Annexure-A/1, which is reproduced below:-
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas Shri Ajay, Son of Shri Mahavir Singh, R/o H.No.1172, Near Syndicate Bank, Kanjawla Road, Bawana, Delhi was a candidate of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 which was notified in the Employment News dated 20.04.2012 and appeared with Roll number 2201539566 for the said examination.
2. Whereas Shri Ajay was provisionally called for Computer Proficiency Test(CPT) and interview cum personality Test of the aforesaid examination and appeared in the said CPT and interview on 12.11.2012 and 12.12.2012 respectively.
3. Whereas the Commission, the Competent Authority in the matter, has made a conscious decision with a view to protecting the integrity of the selection process and to prevent candidates who are prima facie found to indulge in unfair means in such examination from entering into government service through such manipulative practices.
4. Whereas the Commission gets regular post-examination scrutiny and analysis of performance of the candidates in objective type multiple choice question papers conducted with the help of experts who have proven expertise in such scrutiny and analysis and had undertaken such scrutiny and analysis in the case of written examination papers of the aforesaid examination.
5. Whereas incontrovertible and reliable evidence has emerged during such scrutiny and analysis that Shri Ajay had resorted to malpractice/ unfair means in the said papers in association with other 26 candidates/candidates in Paper I of Tier II and with other 09 candidates/candidates in Paper II of Tier II.
6. Whereas the Honble CAT, New Delhi directed vide its order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.2016/2013 that Shri Ajay son of Shri Mahavir Singh is hereby informed that he had resorted to malpractice with the candidate as per list enclosed.
7. In view of above he is directed to show cause within 10 days of issue of this detailed show cause notice as to why his candidature may not be cancelled and he may not be debarred from the Commissions examination for the next five years.
6. The show cause notice provides the background and basis on which the Respondent-SSC have proposed to issue the impugned show cause notice and to take action against the applicants.
7. An interim direction to restrain the respondents from taking any further action against the applicants in terms of the impugned show cause notice dated 15.01.2014 (in the lead OA) has also been sought. We find from the lead OA that while issuing notice, after the same was accepted by learned counsel Mr. S.M. Arif appearing on behalf of the Respondent-SSC, an interim direction had been issued that no action in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice be taken till the next date.
8. Reply was filed by the Respondent-SSC in this OA but on the request of counsel for both parties that the grounds urged with OA are identical in all these OAs, these be listed together for arguments. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for arguments today.
9. Learned counsel for applicants argued that the facts and issues related in these OAs are the same as in OA No.930/2014 (in the matter of Sudesh Versus SSC). It was also submitted that the applicants in the present set of OAs were similarly situated to the applicants in OA No.930/2014. They are aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to them in which they have been asked to explain why their candidature to the allocated post as per the selection process conducted by Respondent-SSC under the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2012 be not cancelled on the allegation of copying in the aforesaid selection process, and further that why they should not be debarred for five years from appearing in the Commissions examination. It was, therefore, argued that the applicants are entitled to the same relief as granted to the applicants in OA No.930/2014 vide order dated 30.07.2014.
10. Learned counsel Mr. S.M. Arif, who appeared in all these OAs, on behalf of Respondent-SSC also argued the matter. He admitted that the applicants in these OAs are similarly situated to the applicants in OA No.930/2014 and further that as of today, they were covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014.
11. We have perused the pleadings and documents on record in the lead case and have considered the arguments placed by both parties. We have also perused in detail the order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 and we agree with the counsel for applicants that they are covered by the aforenoted order. Paras 36 to 40 of the order dated 30.07.2014 are reproduced below to indicate the findings and observations of the Tribunal in that OA:-
36. A prima facie reading of the aforementioned notice does not provide any clarity as to how the conduct of the applicants in these OAs amounted to malpractice/unfair means. For the reason afore-noted, it is clear that the second show cause notice is virtually as vague and ambiguous as the first show cause notice. The first show cause notice was quashed and set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013 along with other connected OAs. The judgment cited by the applicants in the said order of the Tribunal would be squarely applicable in the present OAs also. Similarly, the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad also does not uphold the first show cause notice and the subsequent order passed by the respondents in that matter. We are of the view that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad Bench would also cover the issues raised by the applicants in these OAs and reason for quashing the first show cause notice and subsequent order by the respondents thereon in these OAs would also be applicable in the present OAs.
37. The reasonableness of opportunity before taking adverse notice or adverse action against a person is one of the critical elements of the principle of natural justice.
In the celebrated judgment of the Five-Judge Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, their Lordships dealt with the issue of principles of natural justice as follows:
43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of Authority. It is the hone of healthy government, recognized from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judgment made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilyas Arthasastra the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.
(emphasis provided) Having regard to the bearing that it has in any matter in which an adverse decision is proposed against a person, the respondents are required to demonstrate that the impugned communication had with the utmost clarity specified the allegations to the person in receipt of the show cause notice against the proposed adverse action and who was required to submit his defence against the same. Only then would the test of reasonable opportunity be met and only then would it comply with the principles of natural justice.
38. In the matter of Sunil Kumar Roy Versus M/s B.K. Collieries and Ors AIR 1971 SC 751, which is relied upon by the co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad, in para 13 of its judgment dated 06.05.2014, it has been held that that the grounds on which the action is proposed will have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged, along with statement of the allegations on which each charges is based, and any other circumstances which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders, has also to be stated. The said paragraph of the order is reproduced below:-
13. Further in the case of Sunil Kumar Roy Vs. M/s B.K. Collieries and Ors- AIR 1971 SC 751, the Apex court had stated that the grounds on which the action is proposed will have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged alongwith statement of the allegations on which each charges is based, and any other circumstances which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders, has also be stated. It is only if this requirement is met that one can say that reasonable adequate opportunity has been given to the persons for defending himself.
39. The present show cause notice, as we have observed above, is vague and does not provide sufficient material or evidence or definite charge or charges along with the material to substantiate the same. In the absence of such a clear-cut position, the applicants would be deprived of the opportunity to counter the allegations and to defend him. Such was the view taken by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Staff Selection Commission and others Versus Rakesh Kumar Yadav in W.P. (C) No.7416/2013 (supra).
40. On the basis of the aforenoted, we find that for the same reasons, as contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.11.2013 (ibid) and as also held by the Co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad vide Order dated 06.05.2014 (ibid), the impugned second show cause notice is not fit to be sustained.
12. The arguments of the Respondent-SSC in OA No.930/2014 were dealt with by the Tribunal in Para-41 of the order, which reads as under:-
41. However, before that, we must deal with the argument of Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for the respondents that since the reply to the show cause notice was received from the applicants, it would be incumbent upon the SSC to consider the same and pass a final order, after which if the applicants were to still have any grievance they would be still the option of resorting to legal recourse. We have considered this aspect and feel that after having examined the impugned second show cause notice and having come to the conclusion that the contents in the impugned show cause notice are virtually the same as in the first show cause notice, which was quashed by this Tribunal as afore-noted, the question arises is that whether such an option needs to be given to the SSC. The vague allegations in the show cause notice, as we have held above, does not provide adequate material to the applicants to file their reply to defend themselves. Having been provided insufficient material to defend themselves, it could be very well assumed that any consideration of the reply to a vague show cause notice would not serve any purpose. The Tribunal, while considering CP No.31/2014 in OA No.2054/2013 in its order dated 07.03.2014 (as noted in para-32 above of this order) even at that stage, on a perusal of the show cause notice, had observed 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. This leads us to conclude that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the respondents to consider the reply of the applicants to the show cause notice and to take a view thereon and to pass any order.
13. The Tribunal in that OA held that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondents to deal with the reply to the show cause notice since it would not lead to any meaningful conclusion. The sequence of events leading to the present litigation was also noted and it was observed by the Tribunal that more than two years and four months had elapsed since publication of notice of CGLE-2012, as in the case in the present set of OAs, and that such a long period of litigation had not only delayed the applicants appointment but had also adversely effected their career keeping them in total uncertainty. The same sequence of events are involved in the present OAs also, and such delay is bound to adversely effect the career of the applicants. For this reason, the Tribunal as in OA No.930/2014 would hold in these OAs as well that this delay cannot be further allowed. For this reason, as held in para-47 of the in OA No.930/2014, the Respondent-SSC cannot be permitted to proceed further in the matter.
14. The impugned show cause notice in these OAs are, therefore, not fit to be legally sustained and are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Para-48 of the order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 is reproduced below:-
48. In view of the aforenoted reasons, we hold that the impugned second show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 (in the lead OA) as well as the show cause notice issued to all applicants in the connected OAs, are not fit to be legally sustained. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the same. Consequently, the respondents are directed to declare the result of all applicants in these OAs and to allocate them the Service for which they have been found eligible on the basis of pure merit, if they have been found successful. We clarify that while doing so the respondents shall take action fully in consonance with the rules and instructions governing the subject while declaring the result and for allocating the service for which the applicants are found successful on the basis of merit. The afore-noted action shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In effect, the same relief is granted to the applicants in these OAs, as granted to the applicants in OA No.930/2014 in Para-48 of the order.
16. The OA along with the aforenoted OAs are allowed with the directions contained above by this common order. Any interim orders continuing in these OAs stand vacated with the passing of this order. No order as to costs.
17. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jk/