Honble Kumar, J.–Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The appellants, Union of India and others have impugned the judgment and order dated July 18, 2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing their writ petition assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the Tribunal had set aside the termination of the services of the respondent.

(3). The Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore issued an advertisement notice 4 of 1995 for recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist. In pursuance of the selection held, the respondent was appointed as Junior Clerk cum Typist on 28.6.1996. After about three years of appointment, a communication dated 21.4.1999 was received by the respondent from the Railway Administration relevant part of which has been quoted in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is re-produced below: -

``Now it has come to notice of Railway Board that RRB Bangalore has not subjected the candidates to typewriting test which was an essential recruitment besides there being certain serious irregularities in the conduct of examination. The Railway Board after considering the matter totally and taking into account the report of CBI and serious nature of irregularities in conduct of selection have decided to cancel the entire panel and to terminate the services of all the candidates appointed on South Central Railway by giving the notice as per rules.

The service of the respondent was terminated by order dated 18. 8.1999. The respondent preferred a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of his termination among other on the ground that the respondent was not responsible for any kind of irregularity and in case it was committed by the Railway Recruitment Board he could not be held responsible for it. It could not be said that each and every selected candidate was involved in it, if at all. Hence, a decision to terminate the services of all the appointees or to cancel the selection was bad. The other ground of challenge is that proper show cause notice should have been individually issued to each selectee so as to enable him to submit his proper explanation in respect of the allegations of irregularities, in absence of such a notice the termination order is bad being in violation of principles of natural justice.

(4). The Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the case held that merely saying that serious irregularities were committed in conducting the selection or that typing test was not held, such general allegations could not be enough to take a decision to cancel the whole selection. It is also observed that the show cause notice which was issued is silent about any irregularity in the selection which could be attributable to the applicant. Therefore the show cause notice was inadequate and incomplete. It has further been observed that the report of the CBI cannot be the only refuge for cancellation of the selection, but its contents should have been brought to the knowledge of applicant in a concise form to enable him to give a proper reply but it was not done by the administration. Thus in absence of proper notice and opportunity to the candidate. the order of termination of the applicant stands vitiated. The Tribunal also observed that the CBI report was also not placed before it. With the above findings the termination order was set aside providing that proceedings could be initiated de novo by issuing fresh show cause notice in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

(5). The writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed as indicated earlier, The judgment of the High Court in the writ petition is also based mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the notice which was given to the candidates was vague which amounted to no notice at all. Hence, no proper cause could be shown again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document