Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sunil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 2 March, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA NO. 3149/2011
Date of Reserve: 10th February, 2012
Date of Pronouncement: 2nd March, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member(A)
Shri Sunil Kumar
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/o Village Majri, PO Gubhana,
Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Dist. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
. Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD
Nava Sachivalya, IP Estate
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Delhi Fire Service,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Connaught Place, New Delhi.
3. The Chairman
DSSSB,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
(Near Railway Reservation Centre)
Delhi-92.
4. The Dy. Secretary (CC-I)
DSSSB,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
(Near Railway Reservation Centre)
Delhi-92.
5. The Dy. Secretary (Scrutiny)
DSSSB,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
(Near Railway Reservation Centre)
Delhi-92.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
O R D E R
Honble Shri George Paracken:
The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-1 order of the respondents - Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for short) dated 27.7.2011 debarring him from appearing in any examination and selections conducted by them for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.9.2009.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are delineated here. The applicant was a candidate for the post of Fire Operator in the office of Delhi Fire Service advertised by the respondent No.3, namely, DSSSB under Post Code No.03/2009. He was allotted the Roll No.00324835. He appeared under General category, underwent the selection process and completed the same successfully. However, at the time of scrutiny of his document, the DSSSB found certain discrepancies and inconsistencies in respect of his signature, handwriting etc. and his case was referred to a committee of officers constituted by them. The applicant made a representation to them on 9.8.2011 stating that the confusion regarding his handwriting and signature on their part was unfounded and he was ready to undergo any investigation in the matter. Thereafter, they directed the applicant to appear before them to ascertain the genuineness of his candidature vide their letter dated 21.1.2011. He has accordingly appeared before the Committee on 31.1.2011. Later, they served the applicant with the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 27.7.2011 wherein it was stated that in his case, his result was kept pending as inconsistencies in respect of his signature, handwriting etc. was observed and accordingly his result was referred to a Committee in DSSSB for further verification purpose and the Committee obtained samples of handwriting/signature/thumb impression from the candidates and examined and compared with their respective handwriting/signatures/thumb impression available with the Board. On examination and comparison, it was found that the handwriting/signatures/thumb impression furnished by him to the said committee as well as the handwriting/signatures/thumb impression available with the Board did not match with one another.
They have also stated that they had already cautioned the candidates vide instruction in Para (12) of Section-C of advertisement about actions that the Board could initiate for misconduct in examination by them, if any and they have decided to debar him from appearing in any examination and selection conducted by DSSSB for a period of 5 years from 1.9.2009. One of such actions stipulated therein was debarment of candidates either permanently or for a specified period which may extend to 10 years from any examination held or selection made.
3. Applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that it was issued by the DSSSB in contravention of principles of natural justice as he has never been given any notice before the same was issued. He has further submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondents debarring him from further examination being conducted by the DSSSB is an action which causes severe civil consequences to him and, therefore, the same could not have been taken without proper notice to him.
4. The learned counsel for applicant, Sh. Sachin Chauhan has also relied upon an order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3389/2010 Sh. Sushil Kaushik vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 17.8.2011. In the said OA also the applicant therein was debarred from appearing in the examination by the DSSSB in similar manner. This Tribunal held that the aforesaid order was against the principles of natural justice and he should have been given a show cause notice before any such harsh order was passed. Accordingly, the impugned order therein was set aside but liberty was given to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving him show cause notice and after considering his reply, if need be, after referring the matter to the expert on the subject. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
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 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 applicants 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 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 n the case of applicant; whether it was with regard to his handwriting, 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 he applicant knows his fate.
5. He has also relied upon another order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3415/2010 and connected case Sanjay Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others decided on 21.7.2011 also. In the said case also, the applicant therein was debarred from appearing in the examination conducted by the Board for 5 years. This Tribunal set aside the aforesaid order but at the same time granted liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicants to notice and giving them chance to prove their innoncence. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examining the records of the case, we are of the view that unless the applicants were issued show cause notice and heard in the matter, the orders as impugned in the present OAs could not be passed. It is no doubt true that the allegations made against the applicants are of serious nature. Impersonation in examination is out and out cheating, which would not only make an undeserving candidate to hold a public post, but the same would be also at the cost of someone who may be deserving to hold the post. The matter indeed needed to be taken seriously, but we are of the firm view that such an action, which, as mentioned above, has not only resulted in non appointment of the applicants, but would also debar them from appearing in any examination to be conducted by the respondent Board for the next five years, is too severe a punishment to be inflicted without giving even a chance to the concerned candidate to prove his innocence. We would, at this stage, not like to comment with regard to observations made in the impugned order as that may, in the ultimate analysis, when the matter is re-decided, prejudice the case of one or the other party. Suffice it may, however, to say that from the impugned order and the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears, even though prima facie, that the signatures and/or thumb impression of the candidates were not examined by any handwriting and finger-print expert. Our observation made above is only with a view to point out that there could be moot points to be urged by the applicants while calling in question the impugned orders.
6. We, as mentioned above, would not like to go into the controversy on merit at this stage and our observations made above, as mentioned, are prima facie or tentative. Inasmuch as, adverse order with deterrent consequences, such as debarring the applicants to appear in any examination of the respondent Board for the next five years, have been passed without even putting the applicants to notice, the same needs to be set aside on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice. That being so, we set aside the impugned order dated 27.9.2010, with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicants to notice and giving them chance to prove their innocence even by permitting to bring on record such material as may be relevant, and opinion of handwriting and finger print expert. Surely, if the orders as impugned are to be reiterated, the same shall be speaking and containing reasons for rejecting the defences, if any, projected by the applicants.
7. The two Original Applications are disposed of in the manner fully indicated above, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
6. The respondents have filed their reply. The factual position as stated by the applicant has not been rebutted. They have, however, justified their action of debarring the applicant from appearing in any of the examination conducted by them for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1.9.2009. They have reiterated their contention that there were sufficient reasons to believe that applicant has indulged in malpractice and misconducted himself by procuring impersonation by another person.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, this OA is squarely covered by the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-3415/2010 and connected case (supra) decided on 21.7.2011 and OA-3389/2010 (supra) decided on 17.8.2011. In view of the above position, we dispose of this OA with similar directions. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order of the DSSSB dated 27.7.2011 with liberty to them to proceed afresh in the matter and pass final orders after putting the applicant to notice and giving him chance to prove his innocence even by permitting him to bring on record such material as may be relevant and opinion of handwriting and finger print expert. If the respondent DSSSB still reiterates its earlier impugned decision, they shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and the applicant will have the liberty to challenge the same through appropriate proceedings, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. A.K. Mishra ) ( George Paracken )
Member (A) Member (J)
sd