Shashi Prakash, Member (A) - (1.) THE applicants have filed the instant original applications being aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 01.04.2013 on the ground that the show cause notice is vague as it does not disclose about nature of malpractice alleged to have been adopted by them. It is contended that the applicants appeared in Food Corporation of India Exam 2012 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in which they were declared successful and recommended for appointment on the post of AG -II (Technical) in West Zone. In the meanwhile the respondent No. 2 has issued show cause notice dated 01.04.2012. The applicants have denied the charge leveled against them. It is stated in their reply that in the show cause notice, neither reasons have been assigned based upon which the respondents have formed the opinion regarding adoption of malpractice by the applicants nor any documentary evidence has been disclosed. Therefore, in the absence any disclosure, the action of the respondents is stated to have been illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice.
(2.) IT will not be out of place to mention that similar controversy has already been put to rest by the this Bench in O.A. No. 231/13 alongwith connected O.A. Sunil Kumar Vs. U.O.I & Ors vide order dated 06.05.2014. Hence it is felt that as the subject matter of this O.A. and O.A. No. 231/13 are one and the same and the relief/s sought by the applicants are similar, merely having different dates would not in any way disturb the ultimate direction to be given by this Tribunal in the light of observation made in order dated 06.05.2014. The original application no. 231/13 was allowed based upon the observation of the Tribunal in para 14 of the order dated 06.05.2014, which is reproduced: - 14. A perusal of the facts and proceedings in the O.A. is clearly suggestive of the fact that the memorandum dated 16.04.2012 issued by the respondents, which is in nature of a show cause notice, merely constitutes an empty formality and suffers from the flaws of lack of adequate material on the basis of which the respondents proposed to take action. It did not contain any material based upon which the applicants could have provided an adequate response. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above mentioned case, there should have been an explicit mention of the materials, which was sought to be utilized by the concerned authority in taking the proposed action. What is necessary in such cases is that the reasons must be clearly and explicitly stated so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Absence of such basic explicit material in the show cause notice make is vitiated and therefore untenable. In the circumstances it is felt that the memorandum dated 16.04.2012 having not fulfilled the basic requirement of a show cause notice is patently illegal and unsustainable and is accordingly liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order dated 22.01.2013 passed based upon the show cause notice dated 16.04.2012 also become vitiated and cannot be sustained.
(3.) IN view of the above, the present Original Applications are allowed in the light of order dated 06.05.2014 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 231/2013. Accordingly the show cause notice dated 01.04.2013 is set aside. The applicants are directed to submit a certified copy of the order dated 06.05.2014 alongwith copy of this order to the respondents for compliance within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.;