OA-4171/2013 with OA-4378/2013 and TA-48/2013. Case: 1. Shri Maninder Singh Attri, 2. Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra, 3. Shri Nitant Trivedi Vs 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman and Commissioner of Police, PHQ, 2. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Commissioner of Police, PHQ and Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, 3. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training and Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA-4171/2013 with OA-4378/2013 and TA-48/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate and For Respondents: Sh. S.M. Arif and Sh. Rajesh Katyal, Advocate |
| Judges | Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) and Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 66; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 34, 406, 420, 511 |
| Judgement Date | April 23, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
1. The urgency in these cases is that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has scheduled Tier-I re-examination in certain selected centres on 27.04.2014. However, in view of the interim orders dated 23.09.2013 of this Tribunal further proceedings of Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2013 have been stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed MA-20/2014 for vacation of this stay to enable SSC to conduct the re-examination on 27.04.2014. Since the pleadings in these cases were complete, both parties agreed that the same may be finally heard and decided before that date.
2. The issue involved in all these three cases is the same. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Brief facts of these cases are that the SSC conducted CGLE, 2013 Tier-I on 21.04.2013. During this examination complaints of leakage of question paper and large scale irregularities came to the notice. The Delhi Police registered FIR No. 73/13 u/s. 511/120B/34/420 IPC under PS Crime Branch, Delhi. While, this case was still under investigation, the SSC conducted the Tier-2 examination on 29.09.2013. In that examination as well, irregularities were noticed and another FIR No. 167/2013 u/s. 406/120B IPC & 66 IT Act was registered under the PS Crime Branch. The applicants of these cases are seeking quashing of the entire examination on the grounds that the irregularities that have surfaced are large scale vitiating the entire examination. They contended that under these circumstances, fair selection of meritorious candidates was not possible.
4. On the other hand, while not denying that irregularities have been noticed, the respondents have contended that these irregularities were confined to a few centres such as Lucknow, Patna, Allahabad, Delhi, Jaipur, Dehradun and Shimla. They argued that there is no need to quash the entire examination and that only examination conducted at these seven centres can be quashed. They argued that if the entire examination is quashed future of lakhs of candidates who have taken this examination will be jeopardized.
5. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record.
6. The short point to be decided in these cases is whether the nature and extent of irregularities that have come to notice in the conduct of CGLE, 2013 were so wide-spread as to warrant cancellation of the entire examination or whether it would suffice to order re-examination only at the seven centres mentioned above. To decide this issue, we have seen the nature of irregularities committed as well as the investigation report of Delhi Police dated 16.01.2014 that has been made available to us alongwith other documents on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants Sh. Ajesh Luthra has drawn our attention to the charge sheet filed by the Delhi Police in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. He argued that the persons found to be accused in the case were staying in different parts of the country and engaged in different profession giving an indication that the irregularity was wide spread. Thus, accused No. 1 was Amit Kumar working as a teacher in Haryana Government in Rewari. Accused No. 2 was Sh. Ravinder Singh staying in Sonepat, Haryana. Accused No. 3 Sh. Macchita Malik was working in Sales Tax Department as Inspector in Delhi. Accused No. 4 Ajit Singh was working in Delhi Police as Head Constable. Accused No. 5 Aashu Sharma was teacher in MCD, Delhi, so was accused No. 6 Mukesh Kumar. He went on to state the place of residence and occupation of different accused. He drew our attention to the recoveries affected from the possession of the accused persons to establish the type of electronic equipments that were used in committing the irregularities. These are as follows:-
(i) From the possession of Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Fateh Singh R/o House NO. 3123/75-E, Rewati Nagar, Rewari...
To continue reading
Request your trial