Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, VIRENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
SIDDHARTH TIWARI - Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Respondent
W.P. No. 3103 of 2018
Decided on : 20-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Anand Mani Tripathi, Alok Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
The principle of proportionality in imposing penalties and the importance of considering explanations submitted by the petitioner.
Headnote:
Suppression of Information - Employment - CDS Examination, 2016 - 5(v) of CDS Examination notice No.11/2016.CDS-II, dated 16.07.2016 - The court discussed the suppression of information by the petitioner, the relevant provisions of the CDS Examination notice, and the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, seeking a job, challenged the order debarring him from future examinations due to suppression of information about a previous SSB attempt. The court found the order to be arbitrary and directed a fresh consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the order debarring the petitioner to be arbitrary and directed a fresh consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suppression of information by the petitioner and the proportionality of the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and applying the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in all forthcoming examinations/selections.
1. Petitioner, who is in search of a decent job, has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 10.1.2018 passed by the Public Service Commission, New Delhi rejecting the request of the petitioner to review/recall the order dated 20.6.2017 whereby the petitioner has been debarred for a period of 05 years w.e.f 14.6.2017 from appearing in all the future Examinations/Selections to be conducted by the Commission as he has suppressed the information regarding previous SSB attempt. The present writ petition is filed against the impugned orders dated 10.01.2018, 20.06.2017 and 04.05.2017 passed by the opposite party no. 3 and 4.
2. In order to appreciate the various contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to recite the facts in brief.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Siddharth Tiwari holds a degree in B.Tech in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, who applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment as an officer in Combined Defence Services Examination (II). He gave preference as Air Force Academy, Indian Military Academy, Indian Navy Academy and Officers Training Academy. Ultimately, he was declared successful for the Indian Navy Academy and Officers Training Academy and was called for interview by the INA at 33 Service Selection Board, Bhopal.
4. On 04.04.2017 when the petitioner was declared successful in medical test and conference, a question was asked as to whether he is a fresher or repeater and he was asked to put a note in this context. Then the petitioner put a note that he has not appeared in any Navy or Army interview by Union Public Service Commission. After completion of necessary formalities and having been subjected to selection and fitness test, the petitioner was recommended by the Service Selection Board for the Indian Naval Academy.
5. On 26.4.2017, Indian Navy sent an e-mail to the petitioner mentioning therein that information furnished in the declaration at 33 SSB has been found incorrect and as such the petitioner was required to tender comments/explanation failing which his candidature would be cancelled, to which petitioner tendered his reply dated 29.4.2017 indicating therein that due to lack of knowledge he did not mention about appearing in a test conducted by the Indian Air Force at Deharadun as it has no concern with the Union Public Service Commission (Service Selection Board, Bhopal).
6. Not being satisfied by the reply so tendered by the petitioner, on 29.05.2017, a show-cause notice was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence calling explanation from the petitioner within 15 days, to which the petitioner tendered a reply detailing all the corrects and factual position. Ultimately, On 20.06.2017, an order was passed by the opposite party no. 3 thereby debarring the petitioner for a period of five years w.e.f. 14.06.2017 from appearing in all the future examinations to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission.
7. Aggrieved by the said order of putting an embargo, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 14731 (SB) of 2017 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2017 and while quashing the aforesaid order, the Division Bench observed as under:-
In view of facts stated hereinabove, it appears that after the petitioner had appeared in Combined Defence Services Examination (II), 2016 held on 23.10.2016 he was required to submit Personal Information Questionnaire at the time of interview and as per the case of the respondents, the petitioner has wrongly submitted information in regard to Clause 14 of said Personal Information Questionnaire. So show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2017 to which the petitioner has submitted reply on 06.06.2017. However, by means of impugned order, reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered and no reason has been given by the respondent that in what circumstances, he disagrees with the re
