Mere photograph matching, without proven examination impersonation, cannot justify seven-year debarment.

The applicant and his biological brother, Pintu Meena, separately applied for the SSC Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff and Havaldar (CBIC & CBN) Examination, 2022, using different registration and roll numbers. The applicant alleged that, while applying from the same computer, his brother inadvertently uploaded the applicant’s photograph in his own application, resulting in a photograph match detected by the SSC’s artificial-intelligence-based scrutiny process

On the basis of the alleged photograph match, the SSC issued a show-cause notice dated 23 December 2023, alleging impersonation or procuring impersonation. The applicant contended that the notice was not effectively served upon him and that he did not submit a reply within the prescribed period. By order dated 9 April 2024, the respondents cancelled his candidature and debarred him from appearing in SSC examinations for seven years under paragraph 20.1 of the examination notice

During the proceedings, the applicant filed an affidavit stating that neither he nor his brother had appeared at any stage or tier of the examination. The respondents did not controvert this assertion. The alleged Artificial Intelligence report forming the basis of the photograph-match finding was also not produced before the Tribunal

1. Whether the mere matching of photographs in two separate applications, without proof that either candidate appeared in the examination or that impersonation was actually committed or procured, justified cancellation of candidature and seven years’ debarment?

2. Whether the respondents could impose the penalty when the foundational Artificial Intelligence report was not placed on record and the applicant was not afforded an effective opportunity to meet the material relied upon?

3. Whether the impugned debarment order was arbitrary, disproportionate and contrary to the principles of natural justice?

The Tribunal applied paragraph 20.1 of the SSC examination notice dated 18 January 2023, under which candidature could be cancelled and a candidate debarred for seven years for impersonation or procuring impersonation. It held that such punitive or stigmatic action must be based on reliable material, objective findings and compliance with natural justice.

Relying on Vijay Singh v. State, (2012) 5 SCC 242, the Tribunal treated the imposition of punishment as a quasi-judicial function requiring adherence to governing rules. It also relied on A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, and Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105, for the requirements of fair hearing and meaningful notice.

The principles in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, required proportionality and consideration of the nature and impact of the alleged wrongdoing. The Tribunal further relied on UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551, and Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, Civil Appeal No. 13919 of 2024, for the rule that a notice must disclose the proposed adverse action and that relied-upon documents must be furnished to enable an effective response.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ case rested substantially on an alleged photograph match and an inference of impersonation drawn from an Artificial Intelligence report that was never produced for judicial scrutiny. The applicant’s affidavit that neither he nor his brother appeared in any stage or tier of the examination remained unrebutted. Consequently, there was no evidence of appearance under a false identity, substitution of a candidate, procurement of impersonation, use of unfair means, or any actual examination malpractice.

The Tribunal distinguished a mere irregularity in application data from completed or attempted impersonation. Since the candidates were biological brothers and the photograph match could be explained by inadvertent uploading, the match alone did not constitute cogent proof of impersonation. Further, the failure to produce the foundational AI report prevented verification of the methodology and reliability of the alleged finding. In the absence of that material, the applicant could not have been afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the charge.

Given the grave civil consequences of a seven-year debarment, the Tribunal held that the penalty was unsupported by adequate evidence and was arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in law.

The order dated 9 April 2024 cancelling the applicant’s candidature and debarring him from SSC examinations for seven years was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to lift the debarment imposed pursuant to that order. The applicant remained subject to the eligibility conditions applicable to the relevant examinations. The Original Application was allowed, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.