Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. To their utter surprise, when the applicants reported for duty on 17.12.2012, they were served with termination order without assigning any reason. After receiving the termination order, applicants came to know about some Court of Inquiry ( for short CoI) being held in the matter with which the applicants were not associated in any way nor any intimation was given to them about it. No charge sheet was submitted against any applicant nor was any unsatisfactory report submitted against them. Even no show cause notice was given to the applicants before termination order which is apparently against the rules and natural justice. The entire proceedings are void abinitio and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even no notice of misconduct on the part of applicants was given to them. Under the impugned order, the applicants are thrown on the road without there being any fault on their part and they would be bereft of only source of livelihood. They have no option except to file the present O.A. Accordingly this O.A. has been filed mainly on the grounds that the impugned orders are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and against the principle of natural justice, as such, liable to be set aside; because the applicants in pursuance of advertisement letter applied for the posts advertised by the Maintenance Command of the Air Force and after successfully completing the written examination/physical/interview, they were given appointment letters. They have already put in 19 months service and all of a sudden they cannot be thrown on the road. The termination of applicants from service is against the principle of natural justice, no charge of misconduct has been levelled against any applicant. No show cause notice was ever given to them nor they have been associated in any way with the alleged COI nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them. Since under the impugned orders, serious civil consequences follow, therefore, opportunity was mandatory and not providing any opportunity, vitiates the impugned orders. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the relief claimed by the applicants be granted in their favour.

5. After investigating the allegations in detail, the CoI finalized its deliberation and inter alia submitted its findings and recommendations on 15.02.2012 to quash the entire selection process and order a fresh Board. The CoI proceedings revealed that all norms had been violated at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, preparation of question papers, conduct of written tests, conduct of interviews/trade tests etc. making it impossible to pick out or choose any few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their service in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The nature and extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting the selection were so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection.

6. After duly considering the CoI proceedings, the AOC-in-Chief, Maintenance Command, IAF decided to quash the proceedings of the said BoO and cancelled the selections/appointments made consequent to the recommendation of said BoO and re-ordering of fresh Board was referred to the Air Headquarters vide MC/C 5901/1/4/PC dated 28.02.2012 for their advice. The Air Headquarters vide their letter dated 28.08.2012 approved the recommendations of CoI and directed to take necessary action as per recommendations of the CoI i.e. redo the entire selection process in respect of all 13 posts. Accordingly, AOC, 24 ED was conveyed the recommendations of CoI to quash the entire BoO for direct recruitment of civilians and also directed to order a fresh BoO for recruitment. It was also ordered to terminate the services of four candidates (applicants). Accordingly their services were terminated by order dated 17.12.2012. The termination order was handed over to the applicants on 17.12.2012 itself and they received them on the same date. The termination of service of the applicants has taken effect on 17.12.2012 itself. Thereafter, the applicants approached this Tribunal. The services of applicants had already been terminated before grant of said stay order by this Tribunal. As regards service of show cause notice to the applicants, prior to termination order, it has been submitted that in a case where irregularities committed in the selection process are all pervasive vitiating the whole selection, in that event, it would not be required that each selectee or appointee be served with individual show cause notice. The applicants were not informed of such inquiry so as to ensure its confidentiality and secrecy about the various aspects needed to be investigated and examined. After due investigation, it was well established that all norms have been violated at each stage. The applicants do not deserve any sympathy and the O.A. should be dismissed.

8. The respondents have also filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit mainly stating that on inquiry it was found that the BoO had not adhered to the guidelines and recruitment rules at the time of selection. A lot of irregularities and illegalities, as mentioned in annexure R-6 of the C.A., were found for which the complete selection process had been quashed. The candidates were short listed and selected only provisionally and they were appointed temporarily as mentioned in their appointment letters. The Board has not done the assigned tasks in a transparent manner. The complaints made against the aforesaid selection by the complainants including Secretary Staff Side JCM III level, Air Headquarters are of very serious nature for which the entire selection/ appointment has been quashed. The complaints and irregularities/illegalities were not against the applicants in the instant O.A. hence, they were not made party to the complaints nor any witness in CoI. The CoI inquired on the procedure followed by the BoO during selection process hence, there was no need to inform the same to applicants. If there existed laid down procedure for selection and the same has been compromised then the entire selection become illegal. The BoO for selection had no mandate to circumvent the procedure and vitiate the entire selection procedure. It was mandated to follow the procedure as well as guidelines and was obliged to follow the guidelines in letter and spirit. It is worth to mention that the BoO had circumvented the procedure and the guidelines for selection and were not abided by them. It was not open to the Board of Officers to bypass the laid down procedure for selection. The contention of applicants that due to paucity of time, the BoO have shortened the procedure is not correct. The guidelines were very much in the knowledge of BoO but, deliberately they have not properly adhered to the same during process of selection. The terms of reference of the BoO including the copies of guidelines, recruitment rules and the list of candidates called for interview/test were handed over to the BoO so constituted for the purpose of just and fair selection. The preparation of two sets of question papers instead of three sets is a clear violation of the guidelines of selection process. The erring members of the BoO have been suitably punished for lapses on their part which they have made in selection process. Requisite endurance test for various tradesman, which is a mandatory requirement, was ignored thereby making entire selection illegal. Similarly, it is evident that night driving test was not conducted for MTD tradesman. It is admitted that the driving test was conducted after 14.30 hours and lasted for approximately 04 hours. This approximation does not give an exact timing. There is a clear division between sunset and pitch-dark night. The twilight period cannot be construed as night period and Mechanical Transport Driver (for short MTD) is supposed to be proficient for both day and night driving. If the MTD tradesmen are not subjected to driving skill test for night driving then the driving test is incomplete and is a clear cut vindication of the findings of CoI which has ultimately recommended for the cancellation of proceedings in toto/ totality. Similarly, the BoO has committed a blatant wrong by not seeking permission from Command Headquarters in the case of not calling all the eligible candidates for interview. Should all candidates have been called for interview then the outcome in the form of result would have been different. Not calling all the candidates was nothing but a clear deprivation of opportunity to other deserving candidates which is a clear cut violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, as per the procedure candidates are to be skill tested first and those candidates who are successful in the skill test are to be called for the interview. But, in the present case this procedure has not been followed. Even though the post was reserved for Hearing Handicapped (OBC) candidates but a minimum performance criteria has to be laid out so that a reasonable candidate is selected in the Air Force for the prescribed post. Not stipulating a bare minimum criteria in the form of minimum marks was bad in law as far as selection is concerned. In other words, it is nothing but choosing and picking bad amongst the worst. Similarly, irregularities have been committed in not informing the Special Employment Exchange and Vocational Centers for sponsoring the candidates in the category of Carpenter trade reserved for HH (OBC) candidate. Irregularities have also been committed in the selection process by not following the necessary guidelines such as the measurement of chest, unexpanded and expanded to ascertain the physical fitness of the candidates for Fireman trade, endurance test of carrying weight of 63.5 kg for 183 meters within 96 seconds, clearing 2.7 meters wide ditch and landing on both feet (long jump) and climbing 3 meters vertical rope using hands and feet for selection of Fireman post. Similarly, it is revealed during investigation that the marks have been interpolated after deciding the relative merit of the candidates which is a wrong procedure hence the total selection was illegal. If these incidents, quoted above, are put together the total selection process will be marred by illegalities and irregularities. Adequate time was given for completion of selection process to the BoO. They could have followed the laid down procedure. Violation of guidelines and procedures has lead to quashing of entire selection process and the appointments made pursuant to this selection process. The applicants were not party to the alleged irregularity and illegality hence no opportunity was provided to them. On the other hand all those persons who have directly or indirectly concerned were afforded ample opportunity to put forth their view points. The termination order is neither arbitrary nor illegal.