Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

SHISHPAL v. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

Central Administrative Tribunal

Dec 3, 2020

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Case Summary: OA No.69/2015 (Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Shishpal, was a candidate in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2012 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He appeared in Tier-1, Tier-2 and the interview stage. His result was withheld and a show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 was issued to him alleging malpractices/copying in Tier-2. The notice stated that post-examination scrutiny and analysis by experts revealed "incontrovertible and reliable evidence" of copying.

The applicant replied to the show cause notice on 10.06.2013 but no decision was communicated. He filed this Original Application (OA No.69/2015) seeking, inter alia, quashing of the show cause notice and a direction to the respondents to appoint him as per the CGL‑2012 selection process with consequential benefits.

The same form of show cause notice was issued to many candidates. Earlier proceedings included: - OA No.1352/2013 (and batch) in which the Tribunal quashed the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 for being vague and violative of principles of natural justice, but granted liberty to SSC to issue a fresh notice with particulars and a speaking order. - A fresh show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 was issued and challenged in OA No.930/2014 (and batch); the Tribunal again quashed the notice and directed declaration of results. - OA No.2839/2014 and batch were decided on similar lines. - Respondents challenged the Tribunal's orders before the High Court of Delhi (WP (C) No.9055/2014), which dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's reasoning that the show cause notices were vague. - The respondents filed Special Leave Petitions (SLP Nos.9019-9021/2015) in the Supreme Court which initially stayed the High Court order, but ultimately the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on 19.07.2017 (Civil Appeal Nos.2836-2838/2017 and 2839/2017), thereby upholding the Tribunal's orders. A review petition was later dismissed on 31.10.2017.

Following finality of those orders, SSC declared results for the candidates covered by those OAs and successful candidates were appointed. This OA (No.69/2015) remained pending for adjudication while the higher court proceedings concluded. The matter was heard by the Tribunal and an oral order was pronounced on 03.12.2020.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 issued to the applicant (alleging copying in Tier-2 of CGLE‑2012) is legally sustainable, given that materially identical notices had been quashed in earlier Tribunal proceedings for vagueness and for violating principles of natural justice.
Whether, upon quashing of the show cause notice, the respondents should be directed to declare the applicant's result and, if successful, to afford appointment and consequential benefits (seniority, pay fixation) as per merit and options exercised.
Whether the respondents should be granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice in the instant case, given the prior adjudications and final orders in related matters.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
OA No.1352/2013 (Tribunal order dated 22.11.2013)	Show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 was quashed for being vague and violative of principles of natural justice; respondents were given liberty to issue a fresh notice with particulars and a speaking order.	The Tribunal in the instant OA respectfully agreed with the coordinate Bench and relied on this order to quash the same show cause notice issued to the instant applicant.
OA No.930/2014 (Tribunal order dated 30.07.2014)	The second show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 was quashed as not fit to be legally sustained; respondents directed to declare results and allocate services according to merit.	The instant Tribunal noted that the 28.01.2014 notice (and allied proceedings) had been quashed and complied with, and used that context to find no useful purpose in allowing a fresh notice in the present case; it directed declaration of the applicant's result.
OA No.2839/2014 (Tribunal order dated 17.09.2014)	Similar quashing of like show cause notices and related reliefs.	Referenced as part of the body of decisions that attained finality and supported the Tribunal's approach in the instant case.
WP (C) No.9055/2014 (High Court of Delhi order dated 19.12.2014)	The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the second show cause notice for being vague and devoid of particulars, thus violating natural justice.	The Tribunal recorded that the High Court dismissed the respondents' challenge, thereby upholding the Tribunal's reasoning on vagueness; this was part of the chain of final orders relied upon.
CWP No.24380/2012 (Hon'ble High Court of Punjab)	The Tribunal in OA No.930/2014 relied on this High Court judgment (as recorded in the OA narrative).	Used as an authority in the earlier OA (No.930/2014) which the instant order recounts as part of the antecedent decisions supporting quashing of vague show cause notices.
SLP Nos.9019-9021/2015 (Supreme Court — interim order dated 06.04.2015)	Interim order granted notice and stayed operation of the impugned judgment temporarily.	The Tribunal recorded that the Supreme Court had initially stayed the High Court order but that the stay was later vacated when the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals.
Civil Appeal Nos.2836-2838/2017 and Civil Appeal No.2839/2017 (Supreme Court order dated 19.07.2017)	The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and thus upheld the Tribunal's orders quashing the show cause notices in the related matters.	The Tribunal noted that these Supreme Court decisions removed any further contestation of the prior Tribunal/High Court orders and rendered those decisions final for purposes of the instant OA.
Review Petition Nos.2417-2419/2017 (Supreme Court — order dated 31.10.2017)	The review petitions against the Supreme Court dismissals were rejected as lacking merit.	The Tribunal recorded the dismissal of the review petitions to show finality of the earlier decisions relied upon.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis proceeded from established procedural history and focused on finality and the requirements of natural justice as applied to show cause notices:

The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 issued to the instant applicant was materially identical to the notice quashed in OA No.1352/2013 because it contained the same vague allegation of "incontrovertible and reliable evidence" without particulars as to method, manner, or identification of associated candidates.
The earlier Tribunal order (OA No.1352/2013) had quashed that notice for being vague and violative of principles of natural justice and had permitted SSC to issue a fresh notice only if it included particulars and evidence and thereafter passed a speaking order. The Tribunal in the instant case accepted the reasoning of the coordinate Bench.
The Tribunal next noted that the follow-up notice dated 28.01.2014 — which had been quashed in OA No.930/2014 and OA No.2839/2014 — and the directions given thereupon (including a direction to declare results) had reached finality after the High Court and Supreme Court proceedings (including dismissal of appeals and review petitions). Many similarly placed candidates had already been declared successful and appointed following compliance with those orders.
Given (a) the prior quashing of the identical 27.05.2013 notice by the coordinate Bench, (b) the subsequent quashing of the 28.01.2014 notice and finality of related orders, and (c) the fact that many similarly placed candidates had already been afforded relief, the Tribunal concluded there was no need for a fresh round of adjudication in respect of the same 27.05.2013 notice issued to the instant applicant.
On that factual and legal matrix, the Tribunal quashed the 27.05.2013 show cause notice issued to the applicant and directed the respondents to declare his result within eight weeks. The Tribunal also provided specific directions for administrative follow-up if the applicant was found successful, including allocation of service, transmission of the applicant's dossier to the user department, creation of a supernumerary post if necessary, and steps for appointment formalities.
As to consequential benefits, the Tribunal directed that if the applicant is appointed he shall be given seniority along with his batchmates from this examination and notional pay fixation with reference to his immediate junior in the said department; however, no back wages or arrears were to be paid. The timelines for these actions (declaration within eight weeks; pay fixation within four months of joining) were specified.

Holding and Implications

Primary Holding: The Tribunal quashed the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 issued to the applicant and disposed of the OA in the terms recorded in the order.

The Tribunal's operative directions (the direct effects on the parties) were:

Respondents were directed to declare the applicant's result within eight weeks.
If the applicant is found successful, SSC shall send the applicant's dossier to the appropriate user department and the department shall take necessary action to complete appointment formalities; a supernumerary post may be created if required to accommodate the applicant.
On appointment, the applicant shall be granted consequential seniority along with batchmates and notional pay fixation with reference to his immediate junior in the department; no back wages or arrears shall be payable.
Pay fixation and seniority adjustment shall be completed within four months of joining.

Implications beyond these direct effects: The opinion records that related Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court orders attained finality and were complied with; the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of those final orders. The judgment does not purport to lay down any novel legal principle beyond applying established requirements of particularity in show cause notices and the principles of natural justice; it addresses relief in the specific factual and procedural context of the instant applicant.

Disposition: OA is disposed of in the terms recorded in the order. Pending Miscellaneous Application is also disposed of.

End of summary based exclusively on the provided opinion.

Show all summary ...

OA No.69/2015

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench

OA No. 69/2015 MA No. 422/2015 This the 3^rdday of December, 2020

Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A) Hon'ble Mr. R.N.Singh, Member (J)

Shishpal, Age 25 years, S/o Sh. Ramphal, R/o Plot No.1104, VPO Tikri Kalan, Pana Barshaan,

Near Neelwal Road,

New Delhi.

... Applicant

(By Advocate: Sh. Sachin Chauhan)

VERSUS

1. Staff Selection Commission, Through the Chairman, SSC, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.

2. The Regional Director (NR), Govt. of India,

Department of Personnel and Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.

3. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Govt. of India,

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi.

... Respondents

(By Advocate: Sh. Gyanendra Singh)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

Applicant herein was a candidate for Common Graduate Level Examination, 2012 (CGLE-2012) being conducted by SSC. He appeared in the Tier-1, Tier-2 as well as the third stage (which is interview). His result was, however, withheld as per notice on website of SSC on 30.05.2013. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 27.05.2013 alleging that certain malpractices/copying has been done by him in Tier-2 stage of examination. The operative part of this show cause notice reads as under:

"xxx Whereas the Commission undertakes regular post- examination scrutiny and analysis of performance of the candidates in objective type multiple choice question papers with the help of experts, who have proven expertise in such scrutiny and analysis and had carried out such scrutiny and analysis in the case of written examination papers in Tier II of the aforesaid examination. Whereas, as informed by SSC (Hqrs.), incontrovertible and reliable evidence has emerged during such scrutiny and analysis that Mr./Ms SHISHPAL had resorted to copying in the said papers in association with other candidates who also took the same examination.

Hence, as directed by SSC (HQrs), Mr/Ms SHISHPAL is hereby given an opportunity to show cause, within 10 days of issue of this notice, as to why his/her candidature should not be cancelled and why he/she may not be debarred for five years from appearing Commission's examinations due to his/her indulgence in unfair means in above mentioned examination.

xxxx"

The applicant submitted his reply on 10.06.2013. There was no decision communicated to him. Feeling aggrieved, this OA has been filed. Following reliefs were sought:

"(i) to quash and set aside the SCN dated 27.05.2013 and to further direct the respondent that the applicant be given appointment as per the selection process conducted by SSC under Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGL), 2012 with all consequential benefit including seniority and promotion and pay & allowance

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."

2. The applicant brings out that the same show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 with exactly the same allegation, except for change of name of the candidate, was issued to a large number of other candidates also for the said examination. These notices were challenged by those candidates by filing OA No.1352/2013 and batch. The OAs was disposed of by a common order dated 22.11.2013, whereby the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 was quashed, however, liberty was granted to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice, if necessary, by including all the evidence, details of the malpractice of copying in Tier-2 examination and thereafter pass a speaking order within two months. The operative part of this order reads as under:

"22. In the present case, the impugned Show Cause Notice do not indicate the details of malpractice committed by the candidate or what was the nature of copying indulged by the candidate. It is only stated that incontrovertible and reliable evidence has been emerged

during the regular post examination scrutiny and analysis of performance of the candidate by the experts, who have proven expertise, that the candidates have resorted to copying in association with other candidates who also look the same examination. The respondents, though taken substantial time for filing counters but not chosen to file the same finally. Therefore, there is no occasion to this Tribunal to know what was the method adopted by the respondents-SSC, to come to the aforesaid conclusion on the conduct of the candidates. It is also not on record that a particular candidate committed the alleged malpractice individually or in association with any other candidate and if so, who is the said candidate and in what manner both of them done the mischief. Though the learned counsel for the respondents, vaguely submitted that the answer books of the candidates were compared with the answer books of other candidates by using highly technical and scientific methods and basing on the proportional similarities in giving right and wrong answers and also in not answering certain questions at all, neither he placed the so called specific procedure or method or modus operandi adopted by the Experts nor stated the specific malpractice/ copying alleged to have committed by each applicant. In the absence of the same, this Tribunal cannot express any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the said modus operandi, said to have been adopted by the respondent-SSC. For all these reasons, the impugned Show Cause Notices being violative of principles of natural justice are liable to be quashed."

2.1 Respondents issued a fresh show cause notice dated 28.01.2014. However, it was alleged that complete details were still not given and this new show cause notice was practically on the same lines as of earlier show cause notice. The applicants preferred another OA No.930/2014 and batch. These were adjudicated by the Tribunal vide a common order dated 30.07.2014, relying upon a judgment by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab in CWP No.24380/2012. The said show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 was also quashed and the respondents were directed to declare the result. The operative

part of the order dated 30.07.2014 passed in OA No.930/2014 and batch reads as under:

"48. In view of the aforenoted reasons, we hold that the impugned second show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 (in the lead OA) as well as the show cause notice issued to all applicants in the connected OAs, are not fit to be legally sustained. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the same. Consequently, the respondents are directed to declare the result of all applicants in these OAs and to allocate them the Service for which they have been found eligible on the basis of pure merit, if they have been found successful. We clarify that while doing so the respondents shall take action fully in consonance with the rules and instructions governing the subject while declaring the result and for allocating the service for which the applicants are found successful on the basis of merit. The afore-noted action shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

49. All these OAs are allowed as per the aforenoted directions in this common order. With the passing of this order, interim orders, if any shall stand vacated. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs."

2.2 Another OA No.2839/2014 and batch, was also decided on similar lines vide judgment dated 17.09.2014.

3. The respondents challenged these orders before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.9055/2014. This writ was dismissed on 19.12.2014 and thus the decision of this Tribunal was upheld. The operative part of this order reads as under :

"15. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the second show-cause notice which suffered from the same lacunae of being vague and devoid of any relevant particulars, and there was no purpose in permitting the petitioner to deal with the replies and pass any further order on the basis of such a vague show- cause notice. The said show-cause notice did not fulfill the basic requirements of principles of natural justice inasmuch, as, the respondent-applicant could not effectively have met the allegations made against him - except to deny the same (which he did), in view of the

show-cause notice itself being completely vague and devoid of particulars.

16. Consequently, we find no merit in the present petition and dismiss the same."

4. Thereafter, the above judgement by Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 9055/2014, was challenged by the respondents - SSC, before Hon'ble Apex Court, by filing SLP No.9019- 9021/2015. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 06.04.2015, was pleased to stay the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. These interim orders read as under:

"Issue notice to the Respondent returnable within three weeks.

Till the next date of hearing, the operation of the Impugned Judgment is stayed."

5. However, eventually the stay was vacated and the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA No.930/2014 has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.2836-2838/2017 and Civil Appeal No.2839/2017. The judgment reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Applications for impleadment are allowed. We find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the civil appeals are dismissed."

6. Thereafter, the respondents also preferred a review petition No. 2417-2419/2017 in Civil Appeal No.2836- 2838/2017 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same

was dismissed vide orders dated 31.10.2017, This order reads as under

"Application for oral hearing is rejected. Delay condoned.

We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed."

7. Thus, the orders by Tribunal in para 2.1 above attained finality. These orders have since been complied with and such of the candidates, whose names appeared in the merit list, were granted appointment in keeping with their merit position and options given by them.

8. In the instant case, since the same show cause notice dated 27.05.2013 was in question, the OA was kept pending for want of adjudication by Hon'ble Apex Court (Para 4, 5 and 6 supra). Now since the matter has reached finality, the OA was listed for hearing.

9. Matter has been heard at length. Sh. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel represented the applicants and Sh. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel represented the respondents.

10. The basic issue of malpractice/copying etc., as was alleged in the show cause notice dated 27.05.2013, has already been adjudicated by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in OA No.1352/2013 vide a decision dated 22.11.2013. The follow

up new show cause notice dated 28.01.2014 and the orders thereupon, were again challenged in OA No.930/2014 as well as OA No.2839/2014 and batch, which has now reached finality after the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Para 4, 5 and 6 supra). The respondents have since declared the result in respect of the applicants in OA No.1352/2013, OA No.930/2014, OA No.2839/2014 and batch and such of the applicants who were selected, have been granted appointments after completing formalities.

11. Since the initial show cause notice of 27.05.2013 has already been quashed in OA No.1352/2013 (Para 2 supra), there is no need for any fresh adjudication in the instant case on this show cause notice because it is the same notice which is under challenge in the instant OA also. This Tribunal is in respectful agreement with the decision by coordinate bench. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashes the notice dated 27.05.2013 for the instant applicant also.

12. Keeping in view the follow up new show cause notice dated 28.01.2014, which was also quashed in OA No. 930/2014 and in OA No.2839/2014 and batch, and follow up directions to declare the result for those petitioners (Para 2.1 and 2.2 supra), and the instant applicant being similarly placed, the Tribunal is of the considered view that no useful

purpose is likely to be served by giving liberty to respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice in instant case. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the applicant herein, within a time period of eight weeks, under advice to the applicant. In case the applicant herein is found successful in the said examination and someone lower in merit has already been appointed, the follow up action for sending instant applicant's dossiers to the department which would have been allocated in keeping with merit and option of instant applicant, shall also be undertaken in this time by SSC and thereafter, the said user department shall also take necessary follow up action for completing all the formalities for issuing the offer of appointment. For this purpose, if it becomes necessary to create a supernumerary post, to accommodate the instant applicant, this action shall also be under taken by said department.

In case the applicant herein, is eventually appointed, he shall be given consequential seniority along with his batchmates from this examination and his pay fixation shall also be granted on notional basis w.r.t. his immediate junior in said department. However, it is directed that no backwages or arrears are required to be paid. This fixation of seniority and notional pay fixation shall be completed, within

a time period of four months of his joining the said department.

OA is disposed of in above terms.

9. Pending MA also stands disposed of.

(R.N. Singh) (Pradeep Kumar) Member (J) Member (A)

/sunita*/uma/anjali