Withheld examination results after quashed malpractice charges require reconsideration by authorities.

The applicant, Anand Kumar, was appointed as a Postman on March 17, 1992, on compassionate grounds.

On May 7, 2002, Respondent No. 4 issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.G.O. Examination), 2002.

The applicant appeared for this examination and was allotted Roll No. UPP-184.

His result was withheld via communication dated February 5, 2003, on the grounds of alleged unfair means.

After repeated representations yielded no response, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1487 of 2003, which was disposed of on January 12, 2004.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2, by an order dated July 7, 2004, stated that the applicant's result would not be declared due to alleged malpractice and directed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Aggrieved, the applicant challenged this order by filing O.A. No. 812 of 2004, which resulted in an order dated May 1, 2007, directing respondents to re-examine the applicant's answer sheet and pass a detailed order.

In July 2007, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur, reported that the charges of malpractice were proven, leading to a major penalty charge sheet dated July 5, 2007, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, via report dated November 19, 2009, held the charge of malpractice as proved.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for three months without cumulative effect.

The applicant appealed, and after a show-cause notice for enhancement, the Appellate Authority, by order dated February 21, 2011, enhanced the punishment to a reduction of pay by two stages for five years with cumulative effect.

The applicant challenged this enhanced punishment in O.A. No. 703 of 2011, which was allowed by the Tribunal via order dated April 4, 2018 (corrected on April 11, 2018).

This order quashed the impugned orders and directed that the applicant be treated as not having adopted any unfair means.

The respondents challenged this order before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 6519 of 2019, which is pending, with no interim order granted.

During contempt proceedings at the Tribunal, the respondents decided to comply with the Tribunal’s order.

Arrears of pay and allowances amounting to Rs. 6,35,529/- were paid on March 25, 2021, and interest of Rs. 94,226/- was paid on March 11, 2022, in compliance with the Tribunal’s order.

The CCP No. 134 of 2018 was closed as compliance had been made.

However, the declaration of the L.G.O. examination result and placement in the seniority list have been referred to the Circle Office, Lucknow, and are pending final disposal.

The applicant filed the present O.A. seeking declaration of the result and placement in the seniority list.

1. Whether, despite the previous Tribunal order quashing the disciplinary proceedings and holding that the applicant did not adopt unfair means, the respondents are obligated to declare the applicant's withheld L.G.O. examination result and place him in the seniority list?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of its own previous order in O.A. No. 703 of 2011, dated April 04, 2018 (corrected on April 11, 2018), which quashed and set aside disciplinary actions against the applicant and directed that he be treated as not having adopted any unfair means.

Further, it implicitly relied on the general administrative law principle that directions given by a judicial body must be complied with, and in cases where representations are pending, the concerned authority must decide them within a reasonable timeframe through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's result for the L.G.O. examination was withheld based on allegations of malpractice, which subsequently led to disciplinary proceedings and punishment.

However, the Tribunal in O.A. No. 703 of 2011 explicitly quashed these disciplinary orders, holding that the applicant had not adopted any unfair means in the examination.

This previous order effectively removed the basis for withholding the result.

Although the respondents complied with the directions regarding the restoration of pay and allowances with interest, they contended that the Tribunal's previous order did not specifically direct the declaration of the result.

The applicant, on the other hand, argued that since the basis for withholding the result was removed by the Tribunal's finding, declaring the result was a consequential action.

The current situation reveals that the applicant's representation for declaration of results is pending with the Circle Office, Lucknow, for over two years, without a final decision.

Therefore, the Tribunal directed Respondent No. 2 (Circle Office, Lucknow) to consider and decide the applicant’s representations dated June 6, 2021, and July 18, 2022, in light of the orders passed in O.A. No. 703 of 2011.

This decision must be made within three months from the date of receipt of this current order, through a reasoned and speaking order, with intimation to the applicant.

The Original Application was disposed of with these orders, and no costs were awarded.