Jitendra Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

Shri Jitendra Nayak, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Satish Sahu, holding brief of Shri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents, are present.

The present Original Application has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North

Central Railway, Allahabad by virtue of which the candidature of the applicant for Group D Post has been cancelled and further he has been debarred

for appointment in Railways for lifetime. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:

“ In view of the facts mentioned in the paragraph no. 04 of OA the applicant prays for the following reliefs.

a. To quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. A-1 to this Original Application).

b. To issue any other suitable and equitable order or direction to the respondents which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the present case.â€​

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that not only is this Order a non-reasoned and non-speaking Order passed without considering the

material facts on record, it is also harsh to an extremity depriving the applicant an opportunity to seek employment and also attaches a permanent

stigma on the applicant. Learned counsel further points out that the applicant, in response to the show cause notice issued to him, had given a very

honest and categorical reply confirming that he himself had appeared in all the different stages of the selection process and given his thumb impression

as the biometric evidence of his having participated. Therefore, he seeks that this order be quashed since it fails to accept the facts of the case which

the applicant has brought out in his reply to the show cause notice.

Shri Satish Sahu, proxy counsel for Shri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the respondents have provided a

fair opportunity to the applicant to present his case. He points out that the respondents have observed the princples of natural justice by first giving a

show cause notice to the applicant and affording him an opportunity to present his case. He also draws attention to the averments made by the

respondents in the counter affidavit specifically to Paragraph 7 which clearly mentions that the reply of the applicant was considered but it was not

found to be satisfactory since the authorities had determined that the thumb impression of the applicant did not match.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the documents on record. No doubt, the respondents authorities

are within their rights and responsibilities to take action, even the strictest one, in case of serious malpractices indulged by the candidates appearing in

the selection examination. However, we find that they have not disposed of this matter by way of passing a reasoned and speaking order. We

recognize that they gave an opportunity to the applicant by way of issuing him a show cause notice but in the final impugned order, they have not

discussed either the contents of their show cause notice in detail nor have they evaluated the reply given by the applicant. The plea of the applicant

has been rejected by making a cryptic statement that the “reply/representation was received in this office which is considered by the

competent authority therein you have failed to submit satisfactory reply against show cause noticeâ€. Why is the reply not satisfactory and

what was considered by the Competent Authority to arrive at this decision is not spelt out in the impugned order. In our view, this Order fails the test

of reasoned and speaking order hence we have no hesitation in quashing it. Accordingly, while quashing this impugned order, we direct the

respondents to take a decision afresh in the matter and establish the factual position to the established procedure and mechanism and accordingly

decide the matter de novo. The above directions be complied with within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.

The instant O.A. i.e., O.A. No. 330/00648/2016 is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

There shall be no order as to costs.