Tribunal upholds removal of Chandigarh teachers named as beneficiaries in recruitment paper-leak probe, despite their not being charge-sheeted in the case

Chandigarh Administration recruited Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs) and other teachers in 2014–2015.

After allegations that examination papers had been leaked, the applicant’s name appeared as a beneficiary in three police status reports, although he was not named in the FIR or charge-sheet.

The applicant’s challenge to the High Court judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the Administration thereafter relieved him from service.

In these consolidated applications, the applicants challenged their relieving orders and, among other things, the extension of probation.

1. Whether the applicants’ relieving from service was legally sustainable, given that their names appeared in investigation status reports but they were not charge-sheeted

2. Whether the applicants could reopen the validity of the cancellation of their selections and consequential cessation of service in these proceedings, after the earlier litigation had concluded

3. Whether the pending investigation and absence of a charge-sheet entitled the applicants to continuation in service

The Tribunal relied principally on the binding effect and finality of the earlier adjudication: an issue already decided by a competent court cannot be relitigated by recasting the same controversy, consistent with the doctrine of res judicata.

It applied the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling that cancellation of selection could be sustained where specific material showed a candidate to be a beneficiary of cheating, including material recorded in status reports.

The Tribunal also considered Chandigarh Administration v. Aanchal, which clarified that an employer may take appropriate legal steps if cogent material emerges during further investigation; it distinguished that case because material identifying these applicants as beneficiaries had already surfaced.

The applicants’ arguments concerning stigma, probation, and the absence of a departmental inquiry were recorded, but the Tribunal did not treat them as displacing the finality of the earlier adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s name appeared in three status reports and that the High Court had upheld cancellation where specific material identified candidates as beneficiaries, including through status reports.

It held that the applicant’s non-inclusion in the FIR or charge-sheet did not, in the circumstances, establish that the selection was untainted; nor had the investigation material been withdrawn or nullified.

The investigation’s continuing status did not itself establish innocence or require continuation in service.

Most significantly, the validity of the cancellation and the resulting cessation of service had already been litigated through the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court proceedings.

The applicants could not use the present applications to reopen that concluded controversy.

All connected Original Applications were dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.