Ravikant vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors

Jasmine Ahmed, J

The applicant appeared in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012. He cleared all the written examinations and interview conducted by the respondents successfully. On 8.02.2013, in the final result declared, the applicant's name had been recommended for appointment as Inspector in Central Excise & Customs Department. However, in another result notice published on 30.05.2013 in which the applicant's name was declared as withheld candidate. The applicant received a Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2013 stating that as per post-examination analysis, it was found that he had resorted to copying in the said papers in association with other candidates who also took the same examination. The applicant submitted a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice refuting all allegations. The Tribunal in a similar matter in OA 1352/2013 titled Ashok Kumar Vs. SSC and others quashed the Show Cause Notices being in contravention of the principles of natural justice and further granted an opportunity to the respondents to issue fresh Show Cause Notices. Meanwhile, a similar petition filed by the candidates who appeared in the same examination of CGLE 2012 challenged the similar Show Cause Notice before the Tribunal in OA 930/2014, Sudesh Vs. SSC and others. Vide order dated 30.07.2014, the Tribunal adjudicated the matter by stating that since the respondents had no evidence to prove on record any sort of malpractice resorted by the applicant therein, he ought to be appointed within a period of 3 months.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the applicant stating that the OA is filed belatedly as the final result was declared on 8.02.2013 and thereafter another result was published on 30.05.2013. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant on 27.05.2013, stating therein that as per post-examination analysis and scrutiny conducted by the respondents for examination papers in Tier-II, incontrovertible and reliable evidence had emerged against the applicant that he had resorted to copying in the said papers in association with other candidates who also took the same examination. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant is not at liberty to approach the Tribunal as and when he likes. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179 and U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 SCC 464 and stated that in these two judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that delay and laches have to be examined first by the Court before taking cognizance of the main issue.

We have gone through the judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal (supra). It is seen that the respondents therein had approached the Court for grant of notional promotion from the day their juniors were promoted, after two decades. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was a stale claim and the claim for notional promotion was denied. In the case of U.P. Jal Nigam (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically made out a distinction between persons vigilant and non-vigilant and held that when a person is not vigilant of his rights, he cannot be heard after a long delay on the ground that same relief should be granted as was granted to the persons similarly situated, who were vigilant of their rights. Thus both the cases are distinguishable from the case in hand as the case in hand pertains to fresh appointment and the issue was sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter before the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been finally decided only on 19.07.2017. It is also not the case here that the applicant was not vigilant about his rights as he immediately after receipt of Show Cause Notice filed his reply. It is the respondents who did not take any action on the reply filed by him. Accordingly, both the cases cited by the respondents are distinguishable in character qua the case in hand.

It is an admitted fact that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Sudesh (supra) has attained finality as the Writ Petition preferred before the Hon'ble High Court against the Tribunal's order and SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the High Court's order have since been dismissed. However, there is a major difference of facts in the instant case and the facts of the case in Sudesh (supra). In the instant case, this is the first show cause notice that has been issued whereas in the case of Sudesh (supra), first show cause notice was followed by a second show cause notice as the first show cause notice was quashed by the Tribunal but liberty was granted to the respondents to issue second show cause notice. The second show cause notice was also quashed in case of Sudesh (supra) because it did not contain details of material grounds to which the applicants could respond and as the second show cause notice was deficient in explicitly mentioning the reason and evidence of the misconduct of the applicants and as for want of the same a proper reply to the show cause notice was not feasible, it was held that such show cause notices deserve to be quashed.

In the instant case, we have no difficulty in quashing the show cause notice, being the first show cause notice, because it is in no way different from show cause notices issued in other OAs which have been quashed. However, the judicial propriety demands that the respondents may be given liberty to issue a second show cause notice for the simple reason that we cannot assume at this stage that the second show cause notice would also be deficient in material grounds adequate to satisfy the basic principle of natural justice. Therefore, we dispose of the instant Original Application in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) and quash the impugned show cause notice. However, liberty is given to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice to the individual, if they so desire, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Since  we  have  already  seen  in  the  case  of  Sudesh (supra) that the second show cause notice issued was again almost the repetition of the first show cause notice, therefore, any fresh show cause notice which, by and large, has the same contents as the first show cause notice, will amount to misuse of this liberty. Therefore, the second show cause notice should be issued only if the respondents are in a position to put in the show cause notice substantial evidence in support of their allegations in a manner which can be reasonably rebutted by the applicants. It is made clear that if the fresh show cause notice is not issued within the stipulated time i.e. within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, then the benefit of selection must be given effect to the applicant in terms of the decision in Sudesh Kumar's case (supra), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

No costs.