JITENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a confirmed Stenographer and was eligible to appear at the promotion examination for appointment as Inspector of Income-Tax. The said examination was held in 1978 at which the petitioner appeared. However, he was declared failed on the ground that in two of the papers he used unfair means as found by the competent authority. The petitioner contends that the said decision of the competent authority, holding that the petitioner had used unfair means at the said examination, is unsustainable in law having been arrived at without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority the petitioner filed representations before higher authorities but without any success. By a letter dated 6-9-1979 the petitioner was informed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, to which the petitioner submitted representation, having considered the petitioner's representation, had declined to interfere in the matter.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the result of the petitioner at the said examination. The grounds urged in support of the petition is that the decision reached by the competent authority holding that the petitioner had used unfair means at the said examination affected rights of the petitioner in a serious way in that it deprived the petitioner of prospects of promotion which were open to him under the applicable service rules. The decision entailed civil consequences affecting rights of the petitioned adversely and consequently he was entitled, under principles of natural justice, to have been afforded opportunity to meet the charge of use of unfair means at the said examination.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are clearly of the opinion that this petition is entitled to succeed on the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents it is not disputed that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the competent authority arrived at the decision that the petitioner had used unfair means. It is, however, asserted by the respondents that the relevant service rules do not contemplate giving of any opportunity to the petitioner, before the competent authority holds the petitioner guilty of using unfair means and consequently the petitioner was not entitled to any opportunity.