Mr. Ranvir Singh vs The Union Public Service Commission

V.K. Bali, J.—Petitioner Ranvir Singh who claims to be outstanding student having brilliant academic record of his credit, being first divisioner throughout takes strong exception to orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 dated May 10, 1991 and June 10, 1991 vide which his candidature for Combined Defence Service Examination October, 1990 held by the Union Public Service Commission was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in all the examinations that were to be held by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of five years with effect from April 4, 1991 on the allegations that he had unauthorisedly taken away the Text Booklet along with the answer sheet of Elementary Mathematics Paper from the Examination Hall. Admittedly the aforesaid decision as per Annexures P/5 and P/6 was passed upon the report made by the Invigilator/Supervisor who conducted the examination at the centre where the petitioner had taken his examinations.

Brief facts of the case go to show that the petitioner applied to the Union Public Service Commission so as to compete in the Combined Defence Service Examination which was to be held in October 1990. In preceding examination for Combined Defence Service as well, the petitioner had appeared and was declared successful and he was waiting for the interview. It is only because the examination of October 1990 came in between the examination cleared by the petitioner and the interview that he had to apply again. The case of the petitioner is that he had appeared in the papers of General Knowledge, English and Mathematics in the month of October, 1990 and had performed very well in all the papers and was, therefore, quite hopeful that he will get through the said examination as he was able to get through in the earlier examination as well. After taking the examination in October, 1990, he also appeared in the interview that was conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in November, 1990 but could not clear the same and was, therefore, not in the list of successful candidates. However, in the result of examination held in October, 1990, he found to his dismay that he was shown having failed. The result was declared on February, 6, 1991. Not believing the result that he was confronted with on February 6, 1991, he made a request on February 7, 1991, without losing any time for rechecking of the result as he was confidant that being one of the toppers in his academic career, he could not have failed. The request made by him as per Annexure P/l reads as under:--

"I want to state that I appeared in the Combined Defence Services (C.D.S.) Examination held in October, 1990 and I attempted my papers very well. I am quite confidant that I am One of the few toppers of the said examination and there is some mistake on the part of Union Public Service Commission in not declaring my result and in showing me as a failed candidate. So kindly look into the matter so that my result can be declared at the earliest."

On April 28, 1990, i.e. after more than 2 1/2 months, the petitioner received letter (Annexure P/2) wherein it was mentioned that he had not handed over the Text Booklet as also the answer sheet of the Elementary Mathematics Paper to the Invigilator/Supervisor and had taken away the answer sheet from the examination hall. On the allegations aforesaid, action under Para 6(xi) of the Union Public Service Commission''s notice was also sought to be initiated against him. The petitioner filed reply to the letter aforesaid and explained that there was apparently some mistake or lapse on the part of the Union Public Service Commission and its staff and that he had not taken away the Text Booklet or the answer sheet from the Examination Hall. He sought to support his aforesaid plea on the ground that if he had taken the answer sheet from the Examination Hall, there was no question for the Commission not to have initiated any action against him and confront him with the kind of allegations after a period of four months from the day when he had taken away the answer sheet and that too when the petitioner himself initiated the matter and sought for re-checking of his papers. He also pleaded that if the allegations sought to be made out against him were true, there was no question for the Commission to have permitted him to take the interview with regard to the examination which he had admittedly cleared. The respondent-Commission, however, kept quiet over the issue constraining the petitioner once again to address a registered letter on May 3, 1991 wherein prayer for declaration of his result was reiterated. In the aforesaid communication to the Commission, the petitioner also prayed for an opportunity to prove his innocence by getting the statements of those who had appeared with him recorded. He also prayed for personal hearing in the matter. The Commission, on the other hand, issued letter dated May 10, 1991 and ordered that the result of the petitioner could not be declared as he had been debarred from taking all examinations and selections to be held by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of five years. Separate letter informing the petitioner that his candidature for the examination to be held in May 1991 for which he had applied was also cancelled was also written. The aforesaid two orders have been placed on the records as Annexures P/5 and P/6. The petitioner thereafter addressed several representations to the Commission but when his clamour for justice did not yield any results, he has approached this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

In response to notice of motion issued by this Court, the Commission has filed the reply. Besides preliminary objection that in view of Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, this Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, it is also being pleaded that in the case of the petitioner, a report was made by the Invigilator which was later endorsed by the Supervisor that the petitioner unauthorisedly took away the Text Booklet along with the answer sheet in Elementary Mathematics paper for the C.D.S. Examination, October 1990 and a show cause notice was accordingly issued to him and after proper examination of the reply of the petitioner and all other relevant factors, the Commissioner decided on April 4, 1991 to debar the petitioner for a period of five years for all the examinations and selections to be held by the respondent. In so far as the case of the petitioner with regard to non-grant of personal hearing or non-holding of any enquiry in the matter is concerned, the reply of Commission is that it is not the practice to grant personal hearing in such cases. A perusal of the pleadings of parties, as reproduced above, would manifest that the solitary ground to deny the petitioner the relief claimed for him is based upon the report made by the Invigilator which was later endorsed by the Supervisor.

After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties on April 1, 1992, we were of the opinion that files relating to the examination should be made available. The files were required to be examined for the primary reason that the report upon which reliance was placed by the respondent-Commission was neither made part of the record nor the same was reproduced in the written statement. The files relating to the examination which were available were produced. After having a look at them, we ordered that the same be kept in sealed cover. However, the case was adjourned as the files were not complete as all the documents and relevant letters forwarding question papers to the examiners were not forth coming. The only remaining file which is stated to be available with the Commission was produced in the Court on April 10, 1992. Today after hearing the petitioner in person and Section Officer of the Union Public Service Commission as also after perusing the records as also the files that have been made available, we are of the confirmed view that the case of petitioner is meritorious and, therefore, the present petition deserves to succeed.

As mentioned above, the only reliance of the Commission to pass impugned orders Annexures P/5 and P/6 is upon the report of the Invigilator which was later endorsed by the Supervisor. Before, however, this report and the other record that has been made available to us is discussed any further, it requires to be mentioned that when the arguments were heard on April 1, 1992, Mr. H.S. Giani, learned counsel for the respondents, although initially pressed into service his preliminary objection had later withdrawn the same. File bearing No. F. 7/2/90-EIA(1) pertains to some of the correspondence that ensued after the incident of taking away the Text Booklet and the answer sheet which is relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the present case. We find from this file at page 34 that Mr. G. D. Gupta, Superintendent, Punjab Civil Secretariat who was the Invigilator for the examination concerned had addressed a letter on October 7, 1990 to the Supervisor, C.D.S. Examination, Lajpat Rai Bhawan, Chandigarh wherein it was made out that even though maximum care was taken for the smooth and effective conduct of the examination, he was at a loss to know that the candidate managed to escape from the Examination Hall along with the Text Booklet and the answer sheet. This letter has number mentioned on the left hand side which appears to be the receipt number and the same is dated 14-1-1991. The aforesaid letter dated 7-10-1990 is original one and its photostat copy is also available at page 36 of the file which has an endorsement dated 17-1-1991 to the effect that the copies of explanations received from the Supervisor and the Invigilator concerned be forwarded to E-XVI of C-X Sections for necessary action. We are unable to understand as to how this letter addressed by the invigilator on the same very day when the petitioner is alleged to have taken away the Text Booklet and the answer sheet was received on 14-1-1991 or 17-1-1991 as the case may be. Available in the file at page 33 is also letter written by Shri R.M. Kamal, Supervisor which is addressed to Shri Joginder Nath, Under Secretary, U.P.S.C. New Delhi who in turn made a reference to the letter dated 12-12-1990 whereby the petitioner is stated to have escaped with the Text Booklet and the answer sheet without the notice of the Invigilator Shri G.D. Gupta. This letter makes a mention that report had already been sent on October 7, 1990 and now again the report of the concerned Invigilator Shri G. D. Gupta had been obtained and was being sent in original. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid letter that it was not known as to how the candidate managed to escape from the Examination Hall. The aforesaid letter is dated 7-10-1990 and has endorsement that copies should be sent to the concerned branch/section. This endorsement is dated 17-1-1991 but was diarised on 14-1-1991. From the perusal of the records and in particular the letters, referred to above, a serious doubt in the genuineness of the letters creeps in. Suffice it to say that the result of the petitioner was declared as failed and that he had not received any intimation with regard to disciplinary action that was in offing till such time the petitioner requested after the result that there was some mistake some where in declaring result and that the records should be corrected. The original report of Invigilator but for the number and date mentioned on the left hand side contains no other endorsement. It is only the photo copy of the same which shows that the same was sent or was to be sent to the relevant quarters. The date mentioned on the letters aforesaid, reference of which has been given above, also make the whole affair doubtful. The judicial restraint guides us not to give any definite finding in the matter and it shall be open to the parties and in particular to the petitioner to vindicate his stand in some appropriate proceedings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that before passing the impugned orders, Annexures P/5 and P/6, no enquiry was held in the matter and even though the petitioner had prayed for personal, hearing, the same, too, was denied to him. The only plea to negate even personal hearing to the petitioner is that such a procedure in such cases is not adopted by the Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment which obviously has resulted into totally ruining his career as he will not secure any job in the Central Government and before such a harsh step was taken, the minimum and bare principles of natural justice ought to have been complied with. The guilt of the petitioner ought to have been established in some proceedings, lack of which has vitiated the impugned orders. It is by now well settled proposition of law that where rights of the parties are affected, the Government or the author/ties as the case may be has to afford an opportunity of hearing. This principle of law is more pronounced when the action pro-posed against a citizen has penal consequences. Obviously, not only that the candidature of petitioner was cancelled but he was debar red from competing for any examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of five years. Such a harsh action and deterrent punishment without following the principles of audi alteram partem could be taken only on the pain of violation of said principle and that being so, there is no choice but for to quash the impugned orders Annexures P/5 and P/6. This Writ Petition is, thus, allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.

The files which were taken and sealed be returned to the counsel for the respondents.

Petition allowed.