A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar delivered the judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin on 16 September 2026. Justice C. Hari Shankar authored the decision.

The dispute arose from the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2024. Through a show cause notice dated 26 March 2025, the SSC alleged that the respondent had peeped at another candidate’s screen, made notes and interacted with that candidate during the examination.

In his reply dated 1 April 2025, the respondent denied the allegations and objected that the CCTV footage had not been supplied to him. Without conducting a formal inquiry, the Commission subsequently cancelled his candidature and debarred him for seven years through a memorandum dated 20 June 2025.

The Central Administrative Tribunal granted relief on 18 December 2025 in OA 2402/2025. Challenging that decision, the SSC relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India, (2025) 8 SCC 696.

That precedent requires a person challenging disciplinary action on account of withheld documents to demonstrate the resulting prejudice. Following Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, the Supreme Court explained that procedural omissions must be examined in their factual context. Non-supply of a document does not automatically invalidate proceedings where its disclosure would have made no difference to the outcome.

After hearing Mr. Samarth Luthra, Advocate for the respondent, the High Court found the prejudice apparent in the respondent’s case. The CCTV recording was the only material against him, yet it had neither been supplied nor shown to him. The denial therefore directly impaired his ability to answer the accusation and therefore vitiated the proceedings against him.

“We fail to see how any greater prejudice could have resulted, than has resulted to the respondent in the present case,” the Bench categorically observed.

The Court concluded that the principle relied upon by the SSC supported both Luthra’s contentions and the Tribunal approach: a breach of natural justice that causes prejudice warrants judicial interference. It consequently dismissed the writ petition, leaving undisturbed the relief granted.

The ruling illustrates the importance of meaningful access to evidence in examination misconduct proceedings. A candidate’s ability to respond to an allegation depends on being able to examine the material from which the authority draws its conclusions, particularly where that material constitutes the entire basis of the charge.

Before concluding, the Bench observed that conducting an inquiry or providing the footage could have avoided the litigation.

Central Government Standing Counsel Ms. Swati R.K., assisted by Mr. Mohnish Balu, Advocate, appeared for the petitioners.

The private respondent was represented by Mr. Samarth Luthra, Advocate.The decision clears the way for Jatin’s lawful appointment through CGLE-2024. With his seven-year debarment also set aside, he is free to participate in future SSC examinations, subject to the applicable eligibility requirements, if he so desires.

Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin
Case number: W.P.(C) 7108/2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:8074-DB
Date of decision: 16 September 2026