Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mandeep Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 25 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.3543/2014 WITH OA NO.3270/2014 OA NO.3272/2014 OA NO.3486/2014 OA NO.3544/2014 OA NO.3588/2014 & OA NO.3784/2014 NEW DELHI THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A) HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER (J) OA NO.3543/2014 Mandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Ramdhari R/o Village- Habatpur, P.O. Nirjan Haryana-126102 Age 24 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.) Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif, R-1 & Ms. Nitu for Ms. Rashmi Chopra, R-2) OA NO.3270/2014 Parveen S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o VPO- Gosain Khera, Tehsil- Julana, Jind, Haryana-126114 Age 24 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.). Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif, R-1 & Ms. Renu George, R-2) OA NO.3784/2014 Mohit Rana S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Rana R/o VPO Qutubgarh, Delhi-39 Age 24 years. (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.) Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3272/2014 Mandeep S/o Sh. Rajbir R/o VPO-Saidpur, Tehsil Kharkhoda, Near Suaro Wali Gali, Sonepat, Haryana-131402 Age 24 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.). Applicant VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif, R-1 & Mr. Amit Anand, R-2) OA NO.3544/2014 Sudeep S/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o VPO Silana Tehsil-Jhajjar, Haryana Age 24 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.). .Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3486/2014 Keshav Dalal S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh R/o C-74, Minto Road Complex, Minto Road, Age 24 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.). Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif) OA NO.3588/2014 Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Daryan Singh R/o P-13, Pana Paposiya Narela, Delhi-110040 Age 35 years (candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.). Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS 1. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 2. Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. S.M. Arif, R-1 & Ms. Sumedha Sharma, R-2) :ORDER: SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
These OAs have been taken up together on the request of the counsel for parties inter alia stating that the issue involved in these OAs as well as the reliefs sought by the applicants are identical in nature.
2. With the consent of counsel for parties, OA No.3543/2014 (in the matter of Mandeep Kumar Versus SSC) has been adopted as a lead case for the purpose of pleadings and documents on record as well as for common arguments by counsel for parties.
3. The applicants have challenged the show cause notice issued by SSC (in the lead case) on 27.06.2014 at Annexure-A/1 and thereabouts in the other OAs.
4. Briefly, the case of the applicant is that in 2012 the respondent-SSC issued advertisement to fill up various posts of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police. Applicants being eligible, applied and participated in the recruitment process and also cleared both parts of written examination, as well as the physical test. Interview was held in January, 2013 and on 01.03.2013 results were declared, in which the name of the applicants appeared. In between March-April 2013 applicants were called for medical examination and found fit. After nearly three months later i.e. on 27.06.2014 (in the lead case), respondent-SSC issued show cause notice proposing cancellation of the applicants candidature, and also debarment for three years on allegations of allegedly false and frivolous nature that the applicant had resorted to malpractice/unfair means. According to the show cause notice, this came to the knowledge of the respondents on the basis of the post-examination scrutiny and analysis. In July 2014, process of appointment commenced in Delhi Police but to the exclusion of the applicant.
5. The reliefs sought in the lead case are as follows (similar reliefs have been sought in the connected OAs):-
(a) quash and set aside the impugned orders/actions of the respondents and
(b) direct the respondents to further consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) and appoint him as such with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.
(c) award costs of the proceedings and
(d) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. It is further stated that in between in a separate decision taken in another OA No.1160/2013 on 10.10.2013, SSC was directed by this Tribunal to revise the results and the application of criteria of minimum qualifying marks in the interview was declared to be illegal. Since the respondents did not comply with the directions of the Tribunal, Contempt Petition No.172/2014 was filed. However, it was only after the dismissal of the CWP No.4832/2014 by the Honble High Court of Delhi on 04.08.2014, that the applicants were declared selected to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) vide results published on 25.08.2014, which was conditional result due to frivolous show cause notice dated 27.06.2014.
7. Applicants have contended that the show cause notice issued by the SSC is vague. General kind of allegations have been made by stating that incontrovertible and reliable evidence has emerged during such scrutiny and analysis that the applicant had resorted to copying in the papers in association with other candidates who also took the same examination. The marks obtained by the applicant are at variance with the marks of those with whom copying has been alleged and a comparative chart has been incorporated in the OAs itself. They have also stated that this very Tribunal has quashed and set aside similar show cause notices issued in respect of CGLE-2012 wherein also such vague and arbitrary show cause notices had been issued. A copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 with other connected OAs has been annexed as Annexure-A/7.
8. Counter reply has been filed by respondent-SSC stating that the present set of OAs is a misuse of the process of Law. Since no final cause of action has arisen in favour of the applicants at this stage, these OAs are, therefore, premature and liable to be rejected. Giving the facts of the matter in the lead case, it has been stated by respondent-SSC that minimum qualifying marks had been fixed for interview. Applicants had not obtained minimum qualifying marks and their name was, therefore, not included in the Select List. Subsequently, after the orders of the Tribunal in OA No.1160/2013 quashing the Select List based on minimum qualifying marks, it came to the knowledge of the Commission, on the basis of the post-examination analysis done by the Commission with the assistance of an outside agency, that the applicants had resorted to malpractice/unfair means in the said papers in association with many candidates. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 27.06.2014 and the applicants were directed to file reply within 10 days. Without waiting for the outcome of the show cause notice, the applicants have filed these OAs. Applying the cut-off criteria fixed for interview, only 12 candidates were found fit to be included in the Select List and only 6 candidates found clear from all angles and they were recommended for the related post. The result of the other remaining candidates has been kept in the withheld list, which includes the applicants.
9. The matter was heard. Counsel for applicants relied on the grounds stated in these OAs and further argued that the facts and issue in present set of OAs is similar to that in OA No.930/2014 (with other connected matters) and, therefore, applicants are entitled to the same relief as given to the applicants in that set of OAs.
10. Learned counsel for respondents Mr. S.M. Arif, however, relying on the contentions made in the affidavit, however, agreed that these OAs were covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014.
11. We have considered the pleadings and documents on record (in the lead case) and have given anxious consideration to the arguments placed by parties.
12. The applicants have relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014, with which the respondent counsel has also not differed.
13. In OA No.930/2014, wherein a similar set of show cause notices were issued by respondent-SSC for the second time, the Tribunal had observed in para-36 as follows:-
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.
14. Para-41 of the judgment dealt with the arguments of the learned counsel Mr. S.M. Arif also appearing in those OAs on behalf of respondent-SSC that SSC should be permitted to pass final order, after which if the applicants were to still have any grievance, they would have the option of resorting to legal recourse. Para-41 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
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.
15. The Tribunal also noted the sequence of events in those OAs which started from 24.03.2012 and in para-46 of the said order, the Tribunal had made certain observations with respect to the inordinate delay and the uncertain future of the applicants. This would also be relevant in the present set of OAs wherein notices for examination were published in 2012 and today we are in the year 2015, i.e. nearly 3 years later.
16. The Tribunal passed the following orders in paras-47 and 48 in OA No.930/2014 (with connected matters):-
47. We do not thus find any reason to permit the respondents to pass an order on the reply to the show cause notice received from the applicants in these OAs, especially when we have observed that no useful purpose would be served by doing so.
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.
17. It can be contended that OA No.930/2014 related to the stage of second show cause notice, while the present set of OAs relate to the first show cause notice. It must be noted that the first show cause notice had been quashed by the Tribunal in the case of CGLE, 2012 vide order dated 22.11.2013 in OA No.1352/2013. In the order dated 30.07.2014 in OA No.930/2014 the Tribunal also noted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in OA No.231/2013 had quashed the first show cause notice itself and passed final orders therein also on the basis of the first show cause notice. Having regard to the ultimate findings and decision of the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014, as well as that of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in OA No.231/2013, for the reason, noted by the Tribunal in those OAs, herein also no purpose would be served by continuing with the exercise of the first show cause notice because the show cause notice issued by the SSC in the present OAs are vague and lack specific facts with respect to the allegations leveled against any particular applicant. Moreover, such a vague show-cause notice does not provide sufficient and specific material to the applicant to present a specific defence. This would be against the principles of natural justice.
18. In another set of OAs bearing no.2839/2014 (with other connected OAs) which came up before the Tribunal on the first show cause notice stage itself, the order dated 17.09.2014 of the Tribunal contains the following conclusion:-
25. It appears from para 33 of the order in OA No.930/2014 that in CP No.31/2014 in OA No.2054/2013 along with other related CPs, the Tribunal in order dated 07.03.2014 had observed However, it is a fact that it is well nigh impossible to reply to a show cause notice which does not indicate to them the exact evidence of malpractice/unfair means and what the modus operandi of the department has been It was noted by the Tribunal in that order that even the second show cause notice suffered from non-indication of malpractice/unfair means and what the modus operandi of the department had been.
26. It is thus apparent from above that even after the second show cause notice was issued and the same having been examined by the Tribunal, it was found that as per the second show cause notice had the respondent-SSC hardly any material to substantiate the allegation other than those mentioned in the first show cause notice.
We have also noted that no averment or argument has been placed on behalf of the respondent-SSC that subsequent to the order in OA No.930/2014 dated 30.07.2014, they have been able to collect additional material to substantiate the allegations against the applicants so as to justify the issuance of the second show cause notice.
We have also noted above that the chronology of events would also lead to the conclusion that the entire process has been unduly delayed and that nearly 2 years and 6 months have elapsed from the date of issue of the notice for CGLE-2012 and nearly 1 year and 7 months have elapsed since respondents declared the result on 08.02.2013. The future of the applicants continues to be uncertain. We, therefore, conclude that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent-SSC to issue a second show cause notice in the present set of OAs. The Allahabad Bench also had passed final orders on the basis of the first show cause notice without giving opportunity to the SSC to issue any further show cause notice.
27. Having regard to above, the impugned show cause notices in these OAs not being legally sustainable are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to declare the results of the applicants in these OAs, and allocate them to the service purely on the basis of merit, if found successful in the examination. While doing so, the respondents shall fully conform to the rules and instructions for declaration of results and for allocation of service to those applicants who are found successful on the basis of pure merit. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. OA No.2839/2014 along with connected OAs are accordingly allowed by this common order with aforenoted directions. No order as to costs.
19. In view of above, we are of the view that although the examination to which the present application relates are with respect to recruitment in Delhi Police, the events, circumstances and facts appear to be identical with the applicants in OA No.930/2014 and OA No.2839/2014.
20. For these reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned show cause notice in each of these OAs as legally sustainable and, therefore, quash and set aside the show cause notice in each of these OAs. Respondents are directed to declare the result of all the applicants in these OAs and allocate them the Service on the basis of pure merit, if found successful in the examination, without insisting on the minimum qualifying marks for interview, as has been directed by the Tribunal as noted above. While doing so, the respondents shall ensure compliance of the rules and instructions for declaration of results and for allocation of service to these applicants who are declared successful on the basis of pure merit. Respondents shall further ensure that the afore-noted exercise is completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
21. OA NO.3543/2014 with OA NO.3270/2014, OA NO.3272/2014, OA NO.3486/2014, OA NO.3544/2014, OA NO.3588/2014 & OA NO.3784/2014 are accordingly allowed by this common order with aforenoted directions. Interim order, if any, shall cease to operate with the passing of this order. No costs.
22. Let a copy of this order be placed in each of the case files.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
/jk/