Mohit vs Union Of India & Ors.

“(a)

To set aside the debarring order dated 03.07.2024 in respect of the Applicant.

(b)

To direct the Respondents to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the fact of the appearance of the Applicant in examination, respondents may compare the Applicant in person and CCTV footage of the Applicant.

(c)

To direct the Respondents to consider and grant the Applicant position of Multi-tasking staff (Non--technical).

(d)

To pass any other as deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice..”

“4.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/judgments/written synopsis placed on record.

5.

On a careful consideration of the pleadings on record and submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, it becomes evident that the respondents have followed the prescribed procedure and have uniformly applied the same standards of scrutiny to all candidates, including the applicant, particularly in matters involving suspected impersonation. The record shows that the respondents referred the handwriting and signatures collected at various stages of the examination to CFSL for expert analysis, and the forensic report unequivocally indicated a mismatch between the writings/signatures pertaining to Tier-II and the standard samples furnished by the applicant, thereby substantiating the suspicion of impersonation. This expert opinion, being obtained from a specialized and competent authority, i.e. CFSL, cannot be lightly disregarded, especially when similar reports have been consistently relied upon and upheld in several decisions of coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, as cited by the respondents. We find no reason to take a different view, as in the absence of any material to demonstrate mala fides, procedural irregularity, or perversity in the decision-making process, the impugned order dated 09.04.2019 cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.

6.

Moreover, the Judgment in WP(C) No. 12544/2023 in the case of Gourav (supra) being distinguishable on facts as well as stayed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 50237/2025 vide Order dated 15.10.2025, will provide no help to the applicant.

7.

Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the respondents, which appears to be in consonance with the rules governing the examination process and the settled legal position on the evidentiary value of expert reports in recruitment related disputes.

8.

The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

“Whereas as per para 19.1 of the Notice of the said examination, if a candidate impersonates/procures impersonation by any person / is found indulged in any type of malpractice in the examination, his candidature for the examination will be cancelled and he will be debarred from the examination of the Commission for a period of 7 (seven) years.

Whereas as per para 20 of the Notice of the said examination the decision of the Commission in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of the applications, penalty for false information, mode of selection, conduct of examination(s), allotment of examination centres and preparation of m erit list & post allocation, debarment for indulging in malpractices will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry/ correspondence will be entertained in this regard.

Whereas as per para 14.2 of the Notice of the said examination "the Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for the eligibility and other aspects at the time of written examination and therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally".

Whereas the Commission has found that the Application Time Photo of the candidate is a mismatch from the Photo captured during Exam Time.”

6. “ANALYSIS :

6.1

Whether communicating with another candidate during the examination amounts to “unfair means” or “malpractice” is an issue that requires adjudication in the present case.

6.2

It cannot be disputed that candidates are required to strictly adhere to all instructions and maintain proper decorum to ensure a level playing field for all sincere candidates. If a candidate faces a genuine problem or has a question, they are expected to raise their hand and indicate their intention to speak with the invigilator, rather than communicating with another candidate. Significant reliance has been placed on the post-examination analysis, which forms the basis for issuing the Show Cause

6.3

In Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors (2024 INSC 568), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“67.

In arriving at a conclusion as to whether an examination suffers from widespread issues, courts must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, point to that conclusion. There must be at least some evidence to allow the Court to reach that conclusion. This standard need not be unduly strict. To elaborate, it is not necessary for the material on record to point to one and only conclusion which is that malpractice has taken place at a systemic level. However, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise as borne out by the material before the Court. In Bihar School Examination Board (supra), this Court recognised that “sufficient material” must be present to justify a decision to cancel examinations:

“14.

... If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected.”

“Moreover, in cases such as these, courts must take a holistic view of the facts before them and reach an independent conclusion.” Different courses of action are appropriate in different circumstances.”

6.4

In Staff Selection Commission and Another v. Sudesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7534, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the order of this Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal observed that show cause notices did not indicate details of the malpractices committed by the candidates or the nature of the copying indulged in, as well as the method or modus operandi adopted in the alleged copying. Tribunal had also held that in the absence of details of the alleged malpractices committed by the

6.5

In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof, even in a departmental inquiry, where an employee is facing a charge sheet.

6.6

In terms of Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, whenever the Act provides that the Court shall presume a fact, such fact shall be recorded as proved unless and until it is disproved. Applying the definitions of “proved” and “disproved” under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act to the instructions issued to both the applicant(s) and the invigilator(s), the Court shall presume that these instructions were duly followed in accordance with the same.

6.7

It is well-settled in law that in cases of mandatory presumption, the burden of proof on the respondents is not light and must be discharged rigorously.

6.8

The presumption raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be held to be rebutted merely because the explanation offered by the respondents appears reasonable. When a statutory presumption exists in favour of the applicant(s) regarding the mode and manner in which the recruitment examination was conducted in the presence of invigilators appointed by the respondents, who were physically present and overseeing the conduct, the credentials of the candidature, while allowing the applicant(s) to take the exam and follow the instructions, must be rebutted by substantive proof, not by mere explanation. Unless the explanation is supported by concrete evidence, such as any documented incident of speaking or warning by the invigilator, lodging of a complaint, or subsequent FIR or criminal action, the presumption created by the statutory provision or executive instructions cannot be deemed rebutted. Suspicious movements of the applicant captured in in CCTV footage cannot substitute for substantive proof and must be corroborated by additional evidence.

6.9

ANY AMOUNT OF SUSPICION CANNOT BE EQUATED TO PROOF.

In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. It is therefore right to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In cases depending

6.10

Punitive action does not permit conjecture or on a hunch neither can be construed as a sword hanging over the candidates. Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts cannot prefer expediency over legality. The presumption of innocence endures until guilt is proven through admissible and reliable evidence. It is apt to mention that it is a well-established principle of law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof. The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. To be clear, apparent speaking alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; the invigilator, who is trained to oversee the examination process, did not give a warning about the conduct of the candidates complained of, nor raised any alarm. Thus, it would be prudent to say that more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch”’ of criminal activity was lacking against any individual.

6.11

In Criminal Appeal No. 3977 of 2025 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9317 of 2025), Vandana vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 11.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“14.

The settled principles are well known:

(i)

That the benefit of doubt follows when two views are reasonably possible;

(ii)

That the suspicion however grave cannot substitute standard of legal proof; and

(iii)

That the exclusive control of the alleged forged document must be proved when there is lack of direct evidence to connect the alleged forgery to the accused especially in a case where the alleged document has passed through the hands of several persons before forgery is detected. If the same is not proved, at best, the evidence on record may arouse suspicion but they do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had forged, or knowingly used, or attempted to cheat by use of such forged documents.”

6.12

The Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2025 issued to the applicant reads as follows:

“Whereas Mr./Ms. JATIN S/o SATPAL DHILLON R/o HNO 103, SEC-2, HSIIDC IMT BAWAL, REWARI, Rewari, 123501, Haryana was a candidate of the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2024 held by the Staff Selection Commission on 20-01-2025 at iON Digital

2.

Whereas upon reviewing the CCTV footage, the Commission has found that Mr./Ms. JATIN, Roll No. 2201280333, was peeking into the screen of the candidate with Roll No(s). 2201289450 and also making notes and interacting with the candidate with Roll No(s). 2201289450.

3.

Whereas as per Para 18.1(15), if a candidate is found using unfair means in the examination hall, such as copying from unauthorized sources including written material on any paper or body parts, he/she can be debarred for a period of 7 years.

4.

Whereas the above shows that Mr./Ms. JATIN, Roll No. 2201280333, has used unfair means in the examination by copying from another candidate.

5.

Now, therefore, Mr./Ms. JATIN, a candidate of the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2024 held on 20-01-2025, is hereby given an opportunity to show cause within 10 days from the date of issue of this Notice as to why his/her candidature should not be cancelled on this account and why he/she should not be debarred from appearing in the Commission's examinations. Further, an explanation is to be submitted by the candidate as to why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him/her, considering his/her act of indulging in malpractice in the examination. It may be noted that the reply to the Show Cause Notice must be sent in physical form or by post only to SSE (NR) at the address mentioned in this mail. No correspondence should be done via e-mail.

6.

If Mr./Ms. JATIN, Roll No. 2201280333, fails to respond to this Notice within the time limit specified, his/her candidature shall be cancelled, and he/she will also be debarred from appearing in the Commission's examinations in accordance with the provisions of the Notice of the said examination.

7.

This is issued with the approval of the Competent Authority.”

6.13

The memorandum dated 20.06.2025 (impugned herein) reads as follows:

“Whereas, a Notification for holding the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2024 was published by the Commission on its website on 24.06.2024, thereby inviting online applications. Whereas, Mr./Ms. JATIN S/o or D/o Shri/Smt. SATPAL DHILLON R/o HNO 103, SEC-2, HSIIDC IMT BAWAL, REWARI, Rewari, Haryana, 123501, having Registration No. 10001033105 and Roll No. 2201280333, had applied through online mode for the said Examination.

Whereas Mr./Ms. JATIN appeared in the CGLE Tier II examination

Whereas the Commission had taken a conscious decision with a view to protecting the integrity of the selection process and to prevent candidates who are prima facie found indulging in unfair means in their examination from entering into government service through such unfair means. Further, it is not out of place to mention here that candidates appearing in various examinations conducted by the Commission have repeatedly been warned not to resort to any unfair means/malpractices.

Whereas as per Para 18.1(15), if a candidate is found using unfair means in the examination hall, such as copying from unauthorized sources including written material on any paper or body parts, he/she can be debarred for a period of 7 years.

Whereas as per Para 19 of the Notice of the said examination, the decision of the Commission in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of applications, penalty for false information, mode of selection, conduct of examination(s), allotment of examination centers, preparation of merit list & post allocation, and debarment for indulging in malpractices will be final and binding on the candidates, and no enquiry/correspondence will be entertained in this regard.

Whereas as per Para 14.2 of the Notice of the said examination, "the Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for eligibility and other aspects at the time of written examination and therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally."

Whereas upon reviewing the CCTV footage, the Commission has found that Mr./Ms. JATIN, Roll No. 2201280333, was peeking into the screen of the candidate with Roll No. 2201289450 and also interacting with that candidate.

Whereas the above shows that Mr./Ms. JATIN, Roll No. 2201280333, has used unfair means in the examination by copying from another candidate.

Whereas, a Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2025 was sent to Mr./Ms. JATIN, having Reg. No. 10001033105, at e-mail id dhillonjatin054@gmail.com (along with details of malpractice), to furnish his/her reply within 10 days of issue of the Show Cause Notice as to why his/her candidature should not be cancelled and why he/she may not be debarred from appearing in future Commission's examinations.

Whereas the reply submitted by the candidate has not been found to be satisfactory by the Commission/Competent Authority.

Whereas, in view of all the above, the candidature of Mr./Ms. JATIN, having Reg. No. 10001033105, stands cancelled for the above-cited examination. Besides, he/she is hereby debarred from appearing in any of the examination(s) to be conducted by the Commission for a period of seven years as per details given below:

Candidate Name	Reg. No.	DOB	Category	Address
Jatin	10001 03310 5	29-07-2000	UR	HNO 103, SEC-2, HSIIDC, IMTBAWAL , REWARI , Rewari, Haryana, 123501.

This issue with the approval of Competent Authority.”

6.14

The invigilator is typically expected to take immediate action and report any incident to the examination committee. However, no such action was taken at the relevant time. The photographs alone cannot serve as the sole basis for penalizing the applicant without any corroborating evidence.

6.15

There is no mention of any independent report either in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2025 or in the memorandum dated 20.06.2025 (impugned herein), which is now sought to be relied upon in the counter-affidavit and during the course of arguments. Nothing on record establishes that the invigilator issued a warning to the candidates, or that any alternative measures, such as a change of seating arrangement, were undertaken. Although a analysis report has been cited and placed on record, its authenticity has not been substantiated by concrete proof. Furthermore, a copy of the said report has not been supplied to the applicant.

6.16

In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated as follows:

" That to ensure the integrity of examinations, the Commission conduct post-exam analysis to detect candidates involved in unfair practices. This analysis helps identify and address any instances of malpractice, upholding the fairness and credibility of the assessment process. The post-exam analysis is a crucial step in maintaining the sanctity . of examinations. By carefully scrutinizing answer sheets, attendance records, CCTV Footage and other relevant data, the Commission can

6.17

The respondents relied upon Clause 18, Sub-clause 15, to contend that the use of unfair means would also include “peeping into the screen” and “interacting with the other candidate,” which reads as follows:

“15.

Using unfair means in the examination hall like copying from unauthorized sources such as written material on any paper or body parts etc. ”

6.18

The expression “peeping into the screen” to include “interacting with the other candidate” has not been defined under the Rules, nor has it been notified as constituting an unfair means. The scope of Clause 15 cannot, from a plain reading, be extended to include such conduct. Such words cannot be imported into the clause. Furthermore, no criminal action has been taken or contemplated to date.

7. CONCLUSION :

7.1.

In view of the foregoing, we quash and set aside the impugned actions, i.e., Annexure A-1 dated 20.06.2025 and Annexure A-2 dated 26.03.2025, on the part of the respondents.

7.2.

The respondents are directed to restore the candidature of the applicant for the CGLE-2024 examination. The respondents shall finalize the candidature by declaring the results and taking necessary steps, provided the applicant fulfils all other eligibility conditions, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

7.3.

It is further clarified that, in the event the respondents have lodged an FIR or if a criminal case is pending in respect of the present subject matter, the respondents shall be at liberty to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice, which shall be decided on its own merits.

7.4.

The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.”