Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 261 (TRI)

Subrata Bikash Dey v. State of Tripura

2014-07-07

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. S. M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Ms. P. Chakraborty for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. B. Banerjee for the respondents. 2. Petitioner's case in short, is that, he was given offer of appointment for the Post of graduate teacher on fixed pay of Rs.7060/- per month. He accepted the offer and submitted his acceptance by submitting attestation forms with all required documents. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 by Memo dated 10th May, 2010 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued letter of appointment to the post of graduate teacher with place of posting to the petitioner and similar many others. As per the posting order, the petitioner joined his duties in Fulbasidas para High School, Teliamura on 24.05.2010. He was thereafter discharging his duties as a graduate teacher in the said School. All on a sudden, he received a show cause notice dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) from the respondent No. 2 asking him to show cause as to why his appointment and posting order should not be cancelled alleging that he did not accept the offer of appointment and did not submit relevant documents as required by the offer of appointment. He was given 5 days time to submit his response. Immediately, he submitted his response on 16.06.2010 stating that he has accepted the offer and submitted all necessary documents with attestation forms and that his attestation forms etc. might be displaced in the Education Department and he requested for allowing him to continue his job. Respondent No. 2 on receipt of his reply by impugned Memo dated 02.07.2010(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) cancelled the letter of appointment and posting with immediate effect and hence, having felt aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for setting aside/quashing the show cause notice (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as well as Memo dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and further prayed for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a graduate teacher. 3. Respondents contended that the letter of appointment with posting order (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was issued inadvertently through oversight and that the petitioner did not practically submit his acceptance of offer and also did not submit attestation forms with all relevant documents. He was, therefore, given a chance to show cause and thereafter having no other alternative, it was cancelled. 4. He was, therefore, given a chance to show cause and thereafter having no other alternative, it was cancelled. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioner received the offer of appointment. He had no reason to refuse the offer of appointment and had no reason in not submitting the attestation forms with documents. He has submitted his attestation forms with documents to the department within the stipulated time and offer was accepted by the department and after acceptance, it is to be presumed, the department issued the order of appointment with place of posting and the petitioner accordingly joined the post on 24.05.2010 at Fulbasidas Para High School, Teliamura. He was given a show cause alleging that he did not accept the offer and did not submit the attestation forms and other documents. He denied the allegation and thereafter no inquiry was made on the issue and suddenly the offer of appointment has been cancelled. The action taken by the respondent no. 2 was arbitrary, harsh and against the principles of natural justice and hence, liable to be interfered and quashed. 5. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents with all his fairness submits that the respondent No. 2 has nothing to be hostile against the petitioner. Since the department did not receive the acceptance of offer with attestation forms and other documents from the petitioner and since the order of appointment and posting order was issued inadvertently, respondent No. 2 had no other alternative but to cancel it. The action taken by respondent No. 2 was bonafide and there was no alternative but to cancel the order of appointment of the petitioner. 6. It is an admitted position that offer of appointment as a graduate teacher was given to the petitioner and it is also an admitted position that by issuing Memo dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was appointed to the post of graduate teacher under the respondents and he was posted as a graduate teacher at Fulbasidas para High School, Teliamura. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner joined Fulbasidas para High School on 24.05.2010. The only dispute as alleged by the respondents is that the petitioner did not accept the offer of appointment and did not submit attestation forms and other relevant documents within stipulated period. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner joined Fulbasidas para High School on 24.05.2010. The only dispute as alleged by the respondents is that the petitioner did not accept the offer of appointment and did not submit attestation forms and other relevant documents within stipulated period. The allegation made by the respondent No. 2 in the show cause notice dated 11.06.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) has been controverted by the petitioner submitting his reply on 16.06.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The respondents alleged that the petitioner did not submit his letter of acceptance and attestation forms with documents whereas the petitioner contended that he has submitted his letter of acceptance and attestation forms with all documents and so the allegation has been balanced by submitting reply to the allegation by the petitioner. While the letter of appointment with posting order is issued, it is to be presumed that definitely the petitioner submitted acceptance of offer and attestation forms and other documents and being satisfied, respondent No. 2 issued the letter of appointment with posting order. The contention of the respondents that through inadvertence the letter of appointment with posting order was issued cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances so brought before the Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the cancellation of the order of appointment by the respondent No. 2 was not justified and at best the respondent No. 2 would ask the petitioner in the circumstances to submit his attestation forms with all documents afresh and thereby would consider it before cancellation of the letter of appointment and posting order. 8. Therefore, Memo dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is interfered and it is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join his post at once and thereafter to give the petitioner a reasonable time to submit a duplicate of the attestation forms duly signed by him with all material documents. It is submitted that petitioner has already submitted the original employment exchange card with his attestation form which is missing and so, he may submit a duplicate of the same or a true copy of the same. In the process, the respondent No. 2 is directed to supply a duplicate attestation forms to the petitioner stipulating a reasonable time to submit it afresh. In the process, the respondent No. 2 is directed to supply a duplicate attestation forms to the petitioner stipulating a reasonable time to submit it afresh. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner should be treated as in service during the period passed in the meantime and since the action taken by the respondents are found to be arbitrary and illegal, he should be given 50% of his fixed pay which he was otherwise entitled. 9. It is further ordered that this reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject to the decision of this Court in the case of WP(C) 51 of 2014 (Tanmoy Nath & Ors. V. The State of Tripura & other analogous writ petitions). 10. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Parties to bear their costs.