SOUBHIK NASKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a citizen who has been deprived of his right to livelihood, part of the right to life by the respondent Staff Selection Commission and which has been upheld by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, through an order penned by the Member, Administrative, and agreed to by the learned Member Judicial.

(2.) The petition challenges both the decision of the learned tribunal dated January 10, 2018 in Original Application No.1795 of 2016 as also the orders passed by the Regional Director, Eastern Region of the Staff Selection Commission on July 29, 2014 and May 10, 2016 which the learned tribunal upheld.

(3.) The petitioner has submitted that the manner in which he was deprived of his livelihood was in gross violation of the basic principles of natural justice and the opportunity of being heard. He was, admittedly, first selected for appointment to public employment, in the examinations of 2012 and then his candidature was withheld initially without a reason being assigned; he also appeared for, and was successful in the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection test, of 2012, and joined the Bank of Baroda as a Probationary Officer, Scale I in 2013 because he needed to work to earn and he needed to earn to live; however, he wanted to better his lot, and appeared for the second time in the following year in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (SSC-CGL in short) 2013 and was successful and there was no whisper of his having adopted unfair means; on that occasion the Income Tax Department directed him to join in the post of Tax Assistant by a letter dated September 28, 2015 which induced the petitioner to resign from the Bank of Baroda and obtain a no objection certificate from the bank, which accepted the resignation but he was asked to serve out the notice period for which reason he could not join within the date mentioned by the Income Tax Department; he therefore sought an extension of time from the Income Tax Department to join which was granted by a letter dated February 11, 2016. After he had resigned, he was informed by the letter dated May 10, 2016 that retrospectively his candidature in the 2013 SSC-CGL examination was cancelled and he was given punishment retrospectively, by being debarred from appearing in the SSC-CGL examination for three years with effect from September 16, 2012. The earlier round of litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been against a similar order dated July 29, 2014 which had not disclosed to him any particular before asking him to show cause against a similar punishment, on allegation of his having resorted to malpractice and/or unfair means and had ended with the writ petitioner being successful with the notice to show cause quashed by September 3, 2014 by the learned tribunal.