2002 (2) TMI 1342 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of termination of services based on irregularities in the selection process.
2. Requirement of individual show cause notices to each selectee.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Applicability of precedents in similar cases.

Summary:

1. Validity of Termination of Services:
The Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerk Cum Typist. The respondent was appointed on 28.6.1996. However, a communication dated 21.4.1999 indicated that the selection process had serious irregularities, including the absence of a typewriting test. Consequently, the Railway Board decided to cancel the entire panel and terminate the services of all candidates appointed on South Central Railway. The respondent's service was terminated on 18.8.1999. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the termination, stating that general allegations of irregularities were insufficient to cancel the whole selection.

2. Requirement of Individual Show Cause Notices:
The respondent challenged the termination on the grounds that he was not responsible for any irregularity and that individual show cause notices should have been issued to each selectee. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was inadequate and incomplete, as it did not specify any irregularity attributable to the respondent. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition by the appellants, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice due to the vague notice.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal and the High Court both found that the termination order violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the CBI report, which was the basis for the termination, was not adequately communicated to the respondent. The High Court concurred, stating that the notice given to the candidates was vague and amounted to no notice at all.

4. Applicability of Precedents:
The appellants relied on the decision in Krishna Yadav vs. State of Haryana, arguing that in cases of pervasive irregularities, it is not necessary to issue individual show cause notices. The respondent cited Kashi Nath Dikshita vs. Union of India, emphasizing the need for reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court noted that the nature and extent of irregularities must be scrutinized in each case. In this case, the CBI report indicated widespread and all-pervasive irregularities, making it impossible to issue individual notices. The Court concluded that the Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection was justified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, and upheld the termination of the respondent's services. The Court emphasized that the administration should take action based on the CBI report to bring the matter to a logical conclusion. There would be no order as to costs.