Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 220 (CAL)

NAND KUMAR YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-04-12

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2006
( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the validity and/or legality of the order dated 4th May, 1992 passed by the respondent Chief Security commissioner, R. P. F. , Eastern Railway, Calcutta wherein the said Chief Security commissioner categorically held that the petitioner has been rightly discharged from the training as per statutory provisions contained in R. P. F. Rules, 1987. ( 2 ) FROM the records it appears that the petitioner was selected as r. P. F. constable on or about 15th February, 1989 and thereafter joined the training center for undergoing a preliminary training. Before completion of the said training, the Divisional Security Commissioner, R. P. F. Eastern Railway, sealdah issued an order on 11 th May, 1990 discharging the said petitioner from service with immediate effect. The text of the said order is quoted hereunder : ( 3 ) CHALLENGING the said order the petitioner herein filed a writ petition before this Court on the earlier occasion, which was numbered as CO. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. This Hon'ble Court finally decided the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner on 11th March, 1992 and quashed the aforesaid impugned order. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder : "heard the learned Advocates for the writ petitioner and for the Railway authorities. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in annexure 'a' to the petition wherefrom it appears that the petitioner who was undergoing training under the Divisional Security Commissioner, d. R. M. , Sealdah, after being properly selected therefor, has been discharged with immediate effect. Admittedly, no charge was levelled against the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to him for hearing nor was he allowed to defend himself. There is admitted violation of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the Railways has however, submitted that the petitioner himself has suppressed certain facts and is not entitled to any equitable relief from the Writ Court. Considering all submissions, this Court is of the view that the appropriate opportunity of defending should have been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Respondents may be right in passing the impugned order ultimately, but since there is violation of principle of natural justice, such order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Respondents may be right in passing the impugned order ultimately, but since there is violation of principle of natural justice, such order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. This judgment will not prevent the respondents authorities to take any action in law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by permitting him to appear and file objection, if any. It is made clear that by quashing the impugned order, if the petitioner is entitled to any financial relief, the same may be given to the petitioner in accordance with law. ( 4 ) THE Chief Security Commissioner thereafter asked the petitioner to appear before him on 30th April, 1992. ( 5 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the notice, the said petitioner duly appeared before the respondent-Chief Security commissioner, R. P. F. on 30th April, 1992 when the petitioner was verbally asked to state the objections against the purported order of discharge. According to the petitioner, there was no scope to make appropriate submissions as neither any show-cause notice nor any charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner indicating the grounds for discharging the said petitioner from service. ( 6 ) ULTIMATELY, the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. passed an order on 4th May, 1992 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and upholding the earlier decision, which was admittedly quashed by this Court by the order dated 11th May, 1992. The relevant portion from the aforesaid order passed by the Chief Security Commissioner is quoted hereunder :"since the Police verification was not found satisfactory, Sri N. K. Yadav was discharged from training under Provision of sub Rule 2 of rule 67 of RPF Rules, 1987 by the Competent Authority vide his order no. 105/90 dated 20. 4. 90 conveyed to him vide DSC/sdah's letter No. DSC/e/recruitment dated 11th May, 90. During personal hearing Sri Yadav was shown the "attestation Form" which he had submitted under his signature dated 24. 5. 89, which he recognised to be his and also the "warning" which is recorded on the first page of the "attestation Form" which reads as under: -"furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the "attestation Form" would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the government. 5. 89, which he recognised to be his and also the "warning" which is recorded on the first page of the "attestation Form" which reads as under: -"furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the "attestation Form" would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the government. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation Form, comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated. "from the above it is evident that at the time of submission of the said "attestation Form", two criminal cases were pending against Sri N. K. Yadav and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the said two criminal cases. Thus, the petitioner had deliberately made incorrect and false statements in the "attestation Form" stating that neither he was arrested nor he has been prosecuted nor has been kept under detention nor any case is pending against him in any Court of Law at the time of filling up of the said "attestation Form". From the above it is amply evident that the petitioner had furnished false and incorrect information in the said "attestation Form". Under the circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the case and sri N. K. Yadav has rightly been discharged from training as per statutory provision contained in RPF Rules, 1987 and there is no scope to reverse the decision already taken in the matter. Further the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief as sought for. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. passed the aforesaid order dated 4th may, 1992 in clear violation of the order passed earlier by this Court on 11th march, 1992, while deciding the earlier writ petition being CO. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. In the aforesaid judgment dated 11th March, 1992, this Hon'ble Court made it clear that the said judgment will not prevent the respondent authorities to take any action in law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by permitting him to appear and file objections, if any. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. In the aforesaid judgment dated 11th March, 1992, this Hon'ble Court made it clear that the said judgment will not prevent the respondent authorities to take any action in law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by permitting him to appear and file objections, if any. The learned Advocate of the petitioner also submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this hon'ble Court on 11th March, 1992, the respondent authorities did not grant any opportunity to the said petitioner to file any objection in order to explain his conduct. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said petitioner did not furnish any false and incorrect information in the 'attestation Form' as alleged or at all. ( 8 ) THE Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. in the impugned order dated 4th May, 1992, disclosed that the Superintendent of Police, Ballia (U. P.)vide his letter No. 1172/89 dated 27th December, 1989 intimated the District magistrate, Ballia that the petitioner herein was involved in Dokaty P. S. Case no. 405/88, wherein the charge-sheet was submitted to the Court, and furthermore, the said petitioner was also involved in another case being Case no. 23a/89, which was subjudice at the relevant point of time. ( 9 ) THE learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that in the supplied 'attestation Form' various questions were printed and the petitioner was supposed to put tick marks against the word 'yes' or 'no' pr'nted just by the side of the respective questions. The petitioner submits that in answer to the following questions, the said petitioner put a tick against the word 'no'. The said questions mentioned in the 'attestation Form' are set out hereunder : 1) Have you ever been arrested? 2) Have you ever been prosecuted? 3) Have you ever been kept under detention? 4) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? ( 10 ) THE petitioner by putting a tick mark against the word 'no' actually answered all the aforesaid questions in the negative form. The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein correctly answered all the aforesaid questions. ( 10 ) THE petitioner by putting a tick mark against the word 'no' actually answered all the aforesaid questions in the negative form. The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein correctly answered all the aforesaid questions. ( 11 ) IT has been specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was never arrested in connection with any criminal case nor the same was alleged by the respondent authorities. The petitioner, however, admits that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case arising out of a family feud but at the relevant point of time when the petitioner filled up the attestation form, he had no knowledge about pendency of the criminal case as no charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer before the competent criminal Court at the relevant time and therefore, the said petitioner put the tick mark against the word 'no'. The petitioner also subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the final judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in support of the contention that the petitioner was not found guilty in connection with the said Dokaty P. S. Case. ( 12 ) THE respondent authorities very casually dealt with the matter and did not even file any affidavit although several opportunities were granted by this Court. The learned Advocate of the respondent authorities did not effectively argue the matter nor even choose to file any written notes of arguments. No records have also been produced on behalf of the respondent authorities in this regard. In the aforesaid circumstances, all the averments made in the writ petition remained uncontroverted. ( 13 ) ON examination of the documents annexed with the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit filed on of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet and/or show cause notice although this Hon'ble Court while deciding the previous writ petition of the petitioner being C. O. No. 1019 (W) of 1991 asked the respondent authorities to take any action against the petitioner only after permitting the said petitioner to appear and file objections. Unfortunately, the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner only asked the petitioner to appear before him on a particular date without serving any show cause notice and/or charge-sheet as a result whereof the said petitioner had no knowledge about the charges required to be answered by him at the time of hearing. Unfortunately, the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner only asked the petitioner to appear before him on a particular date without serving any show cause notice and/or charge-sheet as a result whereof the said petitioner had no knowledge about the charges required to be answered by him at the time of hearing. ( 14 ) IN the impugned order dated 4th May, 1992, the said Chief Security commissioner only referred to the written communication of the Superintendent of Police, Ballia regarding pendency of some criminal cases against the petitioner at the relevant point of time but it has never been established that the said petitioner had any knowledge in respect of initiation and/or pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases as it was never alleged that the petitioner was either detained in police custody in connection with any criminal case or appeared before any Court of law in connection with any criminal proceeding or even any notice or summons was served upon the said petitioner. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the time of filling up the attestation form, the said petitioner had no knowledge about the initiation and/or pendency of any criminal case and therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused for furnishing any false and incorrect information in the attestation form. ( 15 ) ON close examination of the impugned order dated 4th May, 1992 passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. , I find that no information and/or document has been referred to and/or relied upon wherefrom it would appear that at the time of filling up the attestation form the petitioner had any information regarding pendency of the criminal cases, which have been mentioned by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia in his letter dated 27th December, 1989. From the xerox copies of the orders produced before this Court it appears that the petitioner herein was exonerated and/or acquitted from the charges in connection with the aforesaid criminal cases as mentioned in the letter dated 27th December, 1989 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia. From the xerox copies of the orders produced before this Court it appears that the petitioner herein was exonerated and/or acquitted from the charges in connection with the aforesaid criminal cases as mentioned in the letter dated 27th December, 1989 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia. ( 16 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. punished the petitioner by discharging him from the service even though it was never established that at the time of filling up the attestation form the said petitioner had any information and/or knowledge regarding pendency of the criminal cases as mentioned by the superintendent of Police, Ballia in his letter dated 27th December, 1989. ( 17 ) THE respondent-Chief Security Commissioner most unfortunately held that there is no scope to reverse the decision already taken in the matter although as a matter of fact, the said decision had already been quashed by this Hon'ble Court by the previous order dated 11th March, 1992 passed in C. O. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. The Chief Security Commissioner was entitled to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself by filing objection and appearing at the hearing. The respondent-Chief Security Commissioner by showing utter disregard to the earlier decision of this Court did not grant any opportunity to the petitioner to file any objection and illegally affirmed the earlier decision taken by the respondent authorities, which was specifically quashed by this Court on the earlier occasion upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties. ( 18 ) IN my view, the respondent authorities have done tremendous injustice to the petitioner herein by discharging him from service in course of training in absence of proper and valid grounds as I have already held that the petitioner did not furnish any false and incorrect information in the attestation form, which was the only ground for discharging the petitioner from service. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons discussed hereinbefore, I am also of the opinion that the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. passed the aforesaid order dated 4th May, 1992 in clear violation of the earlier direction passed by this Court on 11th March, 1992 in CO. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. ( 19 ) FOR the reasons discussed hereinbefore, I am also of the opinion that the respondent-Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. passed the aforesaid order dated 4th May, 1992 in clear violation of the earlier direction passed by this Court on 11th March, 1992 in CO. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. ( 20 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 4th May, 1992 issued by the Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. , cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. ( 21 ) THE respondent authorities herein are directed to forthwith allow the petitioner to join the training school to complete the remaining part of the training and thereafter allow the said petitioner to discharge his due duties and responsibilities as Constable of the R. P. F. The respondents are also directed to sanction all the financial benefits to the said petitioner treating him in service without any further delay but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. This Writ Petition thus stands allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. .