Ex. SI/GD Gopal Lal Jat vs Union of India and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 10th January, 2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 herein cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in the Central Police Organization Examination-2011 and also debarring him from appearing in any of the examinations/recruitments conducted by the commission for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Memorandum. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 30th January, 2013 (page 31) issued by the respondent No. 4 terminating the services of the petitioner and striking of his name from the strength of the unit. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are briefly noticed hereafter

On the 7th July, 2000, the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He thereafter appeared for a recruitment process in September, 2011 for the post of Sub-Inspector/GD as OBC candidate through CPOs Examination-2011 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. He was declared successful in the result which was declared on the 1st of March, 2012 and was allocated to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and an offer of appointment vide letter dated 17th May, 2012 was issued to the petitioner requiring his acceptance.

As a result of the above, the petitioner tendered his technical resignation to the Commandant, E-167 Battalion, CRPF. After being relieved from his unit, the petitioner reported to the 24th Battalion ITBP on 17th June, 2012 and was taken on the strength of the unit and given appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD with effect from 18th June, 2012.

The petitioner reported to the ITBP Academy Mussoorie on 28th September, 2012 for undergoing basic training. It appears that respondents no. 2 and 3 issued noticed dated 28th September, 2012 at his previous employer (CRPF) to show cause as to why his candidature be not cancelled and he be not debarred from appearing in any examination for a period of three years. The notice never reached the petitioner. The petitioner received memorandum dated 10th January, 2013 from the respondent no. 3 informing the petitioner that since he had not replied to show cause notice dated 28th September, 2012 and therefore, it was presumed that he had nothing to say about his guilt in resorting to unfair means in the CPOs Examination-2011 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector/GD for which he had participated.

The respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that consequently his candidature in the said examination was cancelled and he was also debarred from appearing in any of the examination/recruitment conducted by the SSC for a period of three years with effect from the date of issuance of the memorandum dated 10th January, 2013. the same deserves to be considered in extenso which reads as follows:-

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

F. No. SSCG-A-45011/01/2011/Exam.

Date: 10.01.2013

MEMORANDUM

Sub: Rectt. of Sub-Inspectors in CPOs, ASI in CISF and IO in NCB Examination 2011-complaint of malpractices regarding.

With reference to the candidature of the above examination Shri Gopal Lal Jat, Roll No. 5401500196 was directed to explain as to why his candidature should not be cancelled and debarred from all examinations/recruitments conducted by the Commission for a period of three years vide this office show cause Notice of even No. dated 28.09.2012 for resorting to unfair means in the said examination.

Since Shri Gopal Lal Jat has not replied to the above mentioned show cause notice till now, it is presumed that he has nothing to say about his being guilty in resorting to unfair means in the said examination.

As such the candidature of Shri Gopal Lal Jat is hereby cancelled for the SIs in CPOs ASI in CISF & IO in NCB Examination, 2011. He is also debarred from appearing in any of the examinations/recruitments conducted by the Commission for a period of three years from the date of issuance of this Memorandum.

Regional Director (NER)

Based on the cancellation of the petitioner''s candidature, it appears that respondents have issued the order dated 30th January, 2013 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as SI/GD with immediate effect.

We may usefully set out the order which was passed on 30th January, 2013 so far petitioner is concerned which reads as follows:-

No. 1.14014/1/2013 Estt.

Directorate General, ITB Police

MHA/Government of India,

Block-2, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03

Dated: 30.01.2013

Consequent upon found guilty in using of unfair means in the SIs in CPOs ASI in CISF and IO in NCB Examination 2011, the candidature of Shri Gopal Lal Jat, (Roll No. 5401500196) has been cancelled by Staff Selection Commission vide their Memorandum No. 118 dated 10.01.2013. He has also debarred from appearing in any of the examinations/recruitments conducted by the Commission for a period of three years from the date of issue to SSC''s aforesaid memorandum.

In view of above the appointment of No. 120241094 SI/GD Gopal Lal Jat of 24th Bn. is hereby cancelled with immediate effect in terms of Directorate General, ITBP letter No. 833 dated 25.5.2012.

This issue with the approval of the competent authority.

Sd/-

(Shashi Karolia)

For Senior Administrative Officer (Estt.)

It appears that thereafter the petitioner was relieved from service.

It has been contended by the petitioner that no notice dated 28th September, 2012 was ever served upon him. Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the notice was actually sent to the petitioner at E-167 Battalion, CRPF, POLO Ground, Shillong, Meghalaya, Pin-793001.

In view of the above narration of facts, the petitioner was no more in the area of Shillong, Meghalaya as he had tendered his resignation from the CRPF. The respondents have also not produced any proof that such notice was actually served upon the petitioner.

In this background, the issuance of alleged show cause notice dated 28th September, 2012 is of no consequence.

The petitioner has challenged the case primarily on the ground that even though the termination was during the period of probation however the order was stigmatic as per alleged misconduct and in the nature of alleged malpractice in securing his appointment as an Assistant Sub Inspector with the CISF. It is an admitted position before us that the respondent neither issued any notice to show cause nor conducted any form of disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner has stated that he was issued notice that he had indulged in malpractice without any details being furnished to him. The action of the respondents is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 20th March, 2013 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1756/2013 titled as Yogender Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. by this court who was identically placed as the petitioner in the order dated 9th February, 2013, termination of his services had been passed in similar circumstances as of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1756/2013.

It is trite that termination of service even when probation if it entails a person with punitive consequence has to comply with the principles of natural justice.

In the instant case, we find that the respondents have failed to comply with the requirements of such compliance and as such the order terminating the services of the petitioner as well as cancelling the candidature are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order dated 30th May, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2434/2013 Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. and similar writ petitions. By this order, this court had allowed the writ petition filed by similarly placed person on the same grounds which have weighed with us.

We find that the order dated 10th January, 2013 is completely silent on what malpractices are attributable to the petitioner. Even the copy of the notice dated 28th September, 2012 which has been handed over in court does not set out anything against the petitioner. Even if such notice had actually been served on the petitioner, we are at a loss as to what was there for the petitioner to respond to in his reply.

For all the foregoing reasons we direct as follows:

i) We hereby hold that the impugned memorandum dated 10th January, 2013 is contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and therefore hereby set aside and quashed.

ii) The respondents shall pass consequential orders reinstating the petitioner in service as SI/GD within four weeks from today.

iii) The respondents shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the petitioner is given an opportunity to complete his training.

It is however made clear that respondents shall be free to take suitable action, if they so find, following the procedure which is in accordance with law.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

No costs.

Dasti to counsel for the parties.