Delhi High Court
Amit Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission And ... on 19 September, 2016
$~29.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8268/2016
% Judgment dated 19 th September, 2016
AMIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Bharti Raju, CGSC for respondents
no.1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 34263/2016
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8268/2016
3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1.9.2016 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the
Tribunal‟) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed OA No.2773/2016 filed
by the petitioner herein.
4. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed for the disposal of the
present writ petition, are that on 28.5.2011, the Staff Selection
Commission (in short „SSC‟) published a notification inviting
application for the post of Sub-Inspectors in Central Police
Organisation (CPO), Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF) and Intelligence Officers in Narcotics Control
Bureau (NCB) - 2011, by way of a combined selection test. In
furtherance to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said
examination. Upon being eligible in the written tests (Paper-I and
Paper-II), Physical Endurance Test, Medical Examination and
Interview, the petitioner was provisionally appointed as an Intelligence
Officer in NCB vide letter dated 26.4.2012. Thereafter the petitioner
was posted at NCB Office, Lucknow Zone. Since the petitioner was
found indulging in malpractices at the stage of Paper-I and Paper-II,
respondent no.1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 6.5.2013 to the
petitioner herein. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.5.2013.
Another Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.5.2013
alleging that he had resorted to copying in the said examination in
collusion with other candidates. The said Show Cause Notice was also
replied to by the petitioner on 11.6.2013 again stating that he had not
engaged in any malpractice at any stage of the examination. In the
meantime, while the petitioner was undergoing training at CBI
Academy, Ghaziabad, his services were terminated vide order dated
12.6.2013, which led to the filing of OA No.2362/2013 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the OA and set aside the Show Cause
Notice and order of termination vide order dated 8.12.2014. Since the
respondents failed to reinstate the petitioner pursuant to the order dated
8.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal, he was forced to file a contempt
petition, being No.161/2015, before the Tribunal. The respondents
thereafter vide order dated 2.3.2016 reinstated the petitioner. On
29.7.2016, respondent no.1 again issued a Show Cause Notice to the
petitioner alleging that he had indulged in malpractices in Paper-I and
Paper-II. The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice on
12.8.2016, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P-20 to the
present petition. The petitioner then filed OA No.2773/2016 before the
Tribunal against the Show Cause Notice dated 29.7.2016. The said OA
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on 1.9.2016
primarily on the ground that the petitioner (applicant before the
Tribunal) had not filed reply to the Show Cause Notice. Para 7 of the
impugned order reads as under:
"7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in a number of
cases, including in the case cited above, deprecated the tendency
of litigants to approach the Tribunal without first filing reply to
the Show Cause Notice, and has also criticized this Tribunal,
whenever the Tribunal had entertained such Applications, when
the applicants had not even given any reply to the Show Cause
Notice issued to them. Further, the applicant has in Para-6 of
the OA wrongly stated that he has exhausted all available
remedies, while actually he has not even filed any reply to the
Show Cause Notice, which has been impugned by him in this
OA."
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has
overlooked the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.7.2016 which
was filed by the petitioner on 12.8.2016 and, thus, the order passed by
the Tribunal is bad in law and erroneous.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents enters appearance on an advance
copy.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We may notice that in
para 7 of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has
primarily dismissed the OA for the reason that the petitioner had failed
to file reply to the Show Cause Notice whereas factually this aspect is
incorrect as probably it was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal.
8. Resultantly, we quash the impugned order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the
Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing.
List this matter before the Tribunal on 22.9.2016.
9. As learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
urgency in the matter, we request the Tribunal to consider the prayer of
the petitioner herein for interim relief on 22.9.2016.
10. Writ petition stands disposed of in view of above.
CM APPL. 34262/2016
11. Application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
12. DASTI to the parties.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
msr
