Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 831 (CAL)

Aditya Kumar Pramanik v. State of West Bengal

2017-11-01

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ application is directed against the judgment dated May 8, 2014 passed by the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 918 of 2011. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the original application was dismissed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for considering his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The facts of this case, in a nutshell, are as follows:- The father of the petitioner one Bijoy Pramanik (since deceased) was working for gain in the office of the respondent No. 4. He died-in-harness on August 10, 2003. Considering the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner was selected for appointment in a Group-D post. He was sent for medical examination to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Purba Medinipur in September 2010. In the meantime, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal proceeding bearing Khejuri Police Station Case No. 99 of 2008 dated March 13, 2008 under Sections 148/149/341/323/325/427/379 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated April 20, 2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 considering the aforesaid criminal antecedent of the petitioner as also non-submission of his Certificate in support of his claim that he was belonging to scheduled caste community. 4. The petitioner filed the above original application before the learned Tribunal. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground with the observation that since the aforesaid criminal case had been pending at that point of time and the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 13 of the F.I.R. it was open for the respondent authority to take into consideration the aforesaid criminal antecedent while considering his candidature apart from the fact that there was no scope for verifying the genuineness of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner due to non-production of the same before the Enquiry Committee, which had been constituted for consideration of the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. 5. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we further find that the learned Tribunal took into consideration the decisions of Dinesh Barick vs. State of West Bengal and Others, 2010 (2) CHN (Cal) 601, Niranjan Sengupta vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 (4) CHN (Cal) 98 and Arindam Sarkar vs. Union of India, 2010 (2) CHN (Cal) 524 to consider whether the above decisions supported the claim of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated April 20, 2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground and found that none of the aforesaid decisions helped the petitioner due to distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the decisions of Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 , Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 and Daya Sankar Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 103 to find out whether the above decisions supported the decision of the respondent authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion that the ratio of the decisions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases that it was open for the respondent authority to take into consideration the criminal antecedent under reference while considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. While arguing before us, Mr. Tamal Taru Panda, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws our attention towards an unreported decision in the case of Alok Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and Others (W.P.S.T. No. 5 of 2012) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on March 1, 2012, where the decision of the respondent authority for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, considering his criminal antecedent, was set aside. 8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid judgment, we find that a Coordinate Bench of this Court took into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and considering the nature of the offence alleged against him, relief was granted in that writ application. 9. 8. Upon consideration of the aforesaid judgment, we find that a Coordinate Bench of this Court took into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and considering the nature of the offence alleged against him, relief was granted in that writ application. 9. In the case in hand, it is revealed that the respondent No. 2 took into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner, amongst other co-accused persons, in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 99 of 2008 dated March 13, 2008 under Sections 148/149/341/323/325/427/379 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the above FIR, we do not think that it is an appropriate case, where the relief should have been given by the learned Tribunal to him taking into consideration the decision of Alok Sarkar (supra). 11. In view of the discussions and the observations made hereinabove, we are of the opinion, that the impugned decision does not require our interference and accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. 12. There will, however, be no order as to costs.