Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 283 (CAL)

Dinesh Barick v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-03-16

KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application, has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 2nd February, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in the writ petition being W.P. No. 16527 (W) of 2009 whereby and where under the said learned Judge refused to pass any interim order in the matter. 2. THE learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the said petitioner could not be appointed to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmi on the basis of the police verification report. The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that the police authorities did not submit favourable report in respect of the petitioner since he was involved in the criminal case and the investigation was pending. 3. IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer concerned has already submitted a final report in respect of the said criminal case before the concerned Court and in the said report, the Investigating Officer has prayed before the concerned Court for discharge of the petitioner along with others from the pending criminal case as no evidence was recorded against the petitioner during investigation. 4. THE District Panchayat Officer, Nadia also by the Memo dated 22nd May, 2009 asked the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II, District Nadia to ask the petitioner to produce the original certified copy of the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and further asked the said Block Development Officer to send a letter to the concerned police authorities to review its earlier decision regarding suitability of the petitioner. The learned Advocate representing the State-respondents is not aware whether the Block Development Officer had complied with the aforesaid direction issued by the District Panchayat Officer on 28th May, 2009. 5. IN any event, the respondent authorities cannot refuse to appoint the petitioner on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case. Although, in the present case, the Investigating Officer has already submitted a final report before the concerned Criminal Court and has specifically prayed for discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case as no evidence has been found during investigation against the petitioner. 6. THE principle relating to presumption of innocence cannot be altogether ignored by the respondent authorities since the same is very much applicable in the facts of the present case. 6. THE principle relating to presumption of innocence cannot be altogether ignored by the respondent authorities since the same is very much applicable in the facts of the present case. A person should be presumed to be innocent until and unless he is found guilty by the competent Court. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Maity vs. South Eastern Railways and Ors., reported in 2007(4) CHN 616 , reiterated the aforesaid principle as hereunder: "In our view, so long a person is not found guilty by the competent Court of Law, he should be presumed to be innocent.................. 7. IN the instant case, undisputedly, the appellant/petitioner herein has not yet been found guilty by any Criminal Court and on the contrary, the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report before the concerned Criminal Court wherein the specific prayer has been made for discharge of the petitioner from the said criminal case as no evidence has been found against the said petitioner during investigation. 8. THEREFORE, in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant/petitioner herein cannot suffer any prejudice due to the pendency of the criminal case even at the present stage. The police verification report already submitted in respect of the appellant/petitioner herein, undisputedly, does not disclose that the said appellant/petitioner was ever convicted in any criminal case. 9. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no valid reason for denying appointment to the appellant/petitioner at this stage on the basis of the earlier police verification report specially when the Investigating Officer has subsequently prayed before the competent Criminal Court to discharge the said petitioner from the criminal case upon filing the final report. 10. FOR the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the respondent authorities herein are entitled to refuse the offer for appointment to the appellant/petitioner on the basis of the earlier police verification report specially when the Investigating Officer has prayed for discharge of the appellant/petitioner from the concerned criminal case upon furnishing the final report. 10. FOR the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the respondent authorities herein are entitled to refuse the offer for appointment to the appellant/petitioner on the basis of the earlier police verification report specially when the Investigating Officer has prayed for discharge of the appellant/petitioner from the concerned criminal case upon furnishing the final report. We therefore, direct the respondent No. 6 to tissue the letter of appointment in favour of the appellant/petitioner, if he is otherwise considered eligible for appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmi in accordance with law on the basis of the select list already published by the concerned authority without any further delay but positively within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. WE also make it clear that the aforesaid appointment of the appellant/petitioner to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmi will abide by the final decision of the pending criminal case. 12. WITH the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands allowed. In view of the aforesaid order, no purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore by consent of the parties the appeal is also treated as on day's list and the same is disposed of accordingly. 13. THE learned Advocate representing the appellant/petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid order no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending since no other issue is required to be decided in the writ petition. 14. THEREFORE, we also dispose of the writ petition being W.P. No. 16527(W) of 2009 in terms of the aforesaid order by treating the same as on day's list. In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Biswarup Biswas for the appellant/petitioner. 15. THE learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that erroneously the word 'dismissed' has been mentioned in the last line of page 4 of the earlier order dated 16* March, 2010 in lieu of the words 'disposed of. 16. SCRUTINISING the aforesaid order, we are satisfied that due to typographical mistake, aforesaid word 'dismissed' was erroneously mentioned instead of the words disposed of in the last line of page 4 of the earlier order and the same should, therefore, be corrected. 16. SCRUTINISING the aforesaid order, we are satisfied that due to typographical mistake, aforesaid word 'dismissed' was erroneously mentioned instead of the words disposed of in the last line of page 4 of the earlier order and the same should, therefore, be corrected. Office is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the said order dated 16th March, 2010 by deleting the word 'dismissed' from the last line of page 4 and inserting the words disposed of in lieu thereof. 17. OFFICE is further directed to effect the aforesaid correction in the certified copy of the earlier order dated 16th March, 2010, if the same has already been issued to any party.