Termination based on a predetermined decision and vague show-cause notice violates natural justice.

The petitioner was selected pursuant to the 2015 SSC examination for Constable (GD) in the CAPFs and joined the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 31 August 2017 after completing training.

The CBI registered a criminal case concerning alleged corruption and irregularities in the recruitment process and subsequently filed a chargesheet against 167 persons, including the petitioner.

The CBI recommended cancellation of the selection of 165 candidates, including the petitioner.

The respondents issued a show-cause notice alleging that the petitioner had obtained his Karnataka domicile certificate on the basis of fake documents and had furnished false information regarding his residence.

The petitioner denied the allegations and relied upon domicile and residential certificates issued by the competent Karnataka authorities.

By order dated 19 August 2020, the respondents imposed the penalty of removal from service under Section 11(2) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 read with the SSB Rules, 2009.

His appeal was dismissed on 15 January 2021.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner’s removal from service, based on the allegation that he secured a domicile certificate through fake documents or false information, was legally sustainable when the certificates remained valid and had not been cancelled by the competent State authorities?

Whether the show-cause notice and consequential removal order violated the principles of natural justice by being vague, withholding relied-upon material, failing to properly consider the petitioner’s reply, and denying a personal hearing?

Whether the decision to cancel the petitioner’s candidature had been predetermined before issuance of the show-cause notice, thereby rendering the disciplinary process a mere formality?

The respondents’ action was examined under Section 11(2) of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, read with the applicable provisions of the SSB Rules, 2009, including Rules 18, 23 and 179, which empowered disciplinary action for misconduct and furnishing false information.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person facing an adverse civil consequence must be supplied the material relied upon, given a meaningful opportunity to respond, and afforded a fair and unbiased hearing.

Relying on Ex. Squadron Leader R. Sood v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6929–6930/2009, decided on 15 April 2026, the Court noted that although judicial review ordinarily does not involve reassessment of the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary matters, closer scrutiny is warranted where no regular inquiry is conducted and the delinquent is denied an opportunity to test the evidence.

The Court further applied the principle that the authority competent to issue and cancel a domicile or residential certificate is the relevant State authority, and disciplinary authorities cannot, without adequate material, effectively sit in appeal over such certificate.

The Court found that the petitioner’s domicile certificate dated 28 February 2011 and residential certificate dated 13 May 2015 were genuine documents issued by the competent Karnataka authorities and had never been cancelled.

The respondents had not approached those authorities for cancellation or verification despite alleging that the certificates were obtained through fake documents.

The petitioner’s temporary stay in Noida for education between 2009 and 2011 did not, by itself, disprove his Karnataka domicile or establish that he had furnished false information.

The show-cause notice relied generally on discrepancies in addresses, educational residence and the CBI case, but did not identify the specific allegedly fake documents or false statements, nor supply the material necessary for an effective defence.

The respondents also failed to deal adequately with the petitioner’s reply or provide a personal hearing.

Further, the communication dated 14 January 2020 indicated that the decision to cancel the candidature of 165 candidates had already been taken before the show-cause notice was issued, suggesting that the subsequent process was predetermined and merely formal.

Accordingly, the removal order and appellate decision could not withstand judicial review.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and grant him seniority with his batchmates.

The petitioner was permitted to submit a representation regarding back wages, which the respondents were directed to consider and decide within eight weeks.

At the respondents’ request, the operation and effect of the judgment were stayed for four weeks from 19 August 2026.