Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2402/2025 Order reserved on 02.12.2025 Order pronounced on 18.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Jatin, S/o Sh. Satpal Dhillon, R/o H. No.1 03, Sector-2, HSIIDC IMT Bawal Rewari, Rewari, Haryana - 123501 (Aged about 25 years)

(Candidate towards SSC examination)

…Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi

2. Staff Selection Commission (Headquarters)

Through its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110504

3. Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)

Through its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110504

4. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters (New Building)

Behind Parliament Street Police Station New Delhi – 110001.

…Respondents (By Advocates: Mr. Dhananjai Rana)

O R D E R By 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) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure A/1), by which the respondents have cancelled the applicant's candidature for CGLE-2024 and debarred him for 7 years, along with the Show Cause Notice dated

26.03.2025 (Annexure A/2);

(b) Accord all consequential benefits;

(c) Award costs of the proceedings; and (d) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the present O.A., the applicant has placed a challenge to the impugned order dated 20.06.2025, whereby his candidature for CGLE-2024 has been cancelled and he has further been debarred from appearing in any examination to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for a period of seven years.

2.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant on

26.03.2025 alleging that he indulged in unfair means during the CGLE-2024 examination by ‘peeping into the screen’ of another candidate.

2.2 Learned counsel contended that in response to the said Show Cause Notice, the applicant specifically requested the videography and all materials relied upon by the respondents. However, instead of supplying the same, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 20.06.2025, canceling the candidature and imposing a seven-year debarment.

2.3 Learned counsel further contended that the allegation in the Show Cause Notice was limited to “peeping into the screen,” whereas the impugned order has expanded the allegations to include ‘interacting with the other candidate,’ which was never part of the original notice. This reflects a material inconsistency between the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order.

2.4 It is also submitted that the punishment of debarment for a period of seven years is highly excessive, disproportionate, and harsh. Further, the non-supply of the videography footage, despite repeated requests, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and has deprived the applicant of an effective opportunity to defend himself.

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision of SSC is based on the allegations as reflected paragraph 2 of the Show Cause Notice, wherein it was stated that the applicant was found peeping into the screen of another candidate and interacting with him, which constitutes the adoption of unfair means during the examination.

3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant was found, upon post- examination analysis of CCTV footage and answer sheet logs, to have engaged in malpractice by communicating and