The Tribunal ruled that a Show Cause Notice lacking evidence violates natural justice, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated candidates and quashing the notice.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application filed under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a) Hold and declare that in the light of the order dated 19/07/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9019-9021/2015 (Civil Appeals No 2836-2838/2017) the Show Cause Notice dated 27/05/2013, is illegal and against the principles of natural justice;

b) Either set aside the said show cause notice or direct the respondents to withdraw the same forthwith, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement.

c) Direct the respondents to offer appointment to the applicant on the appropriate post according to his merit alongwith all ancillary benefits and allowances, with retrospective effect from the date of appointment of his counterparts d) Further consider to remove the name of applicant from the list of withheld candidates (if so included therein) and declare the applicant herein appointed in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 e) Accord all consequential benefits.

f) Award costs of the proceedings; and g) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests-of justice in favour of the applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant appeared for the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012 (CGLE 2012) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and cleared all written exams, CPT, and interview. However, the applicant received a Show Cause Notice on 27/05/2013 alleging malpractice, which the applicant refuted, pointing out that the SSC failed to provide any evidence.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that similar cases, including Ashok Kumar Vs SSC (OA No. 1352/2013) and Sudesh Vs SSC (OA No. 930/2014), were decided in favor of the candidates, with this Tribunal quashing the Show Cause Notices citing lack of evidence and procedural irregularities. Despite the SSC challenging these decisions, the High Court and Supreme Court upheld the quashing of the notices. Nevertheless, the SSC has failed to take action on the applicant's case, ignoring multiple representations made by him. As a result, the applicant has now approached this Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievances.

3. Opposing the grant of reliefs, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bichitrananda Behra Vs State of Orrisa (2023 SCC Online SC 1307) wherein it was observed as under :-

“21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain decisions of this Court:

(A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648:

“To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not