A
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS.
v.
MRITYUNJOY SARKAR AND ORS.
MARCH 18, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
West Bengal Service Regulations (Part-I) : Rule 34(b ).
Se1vice Law-Discharge from se1vice-Validity of-State Armed
C Police-Recntitment of Constables-Recmitment based on list fwnished by
Employment Excha11g~abour Commissioner's letter stating that list of
names fo1warded by Employment Exchange was fake-Consequential action
of discharge-High Cowt set1i11g aside order of discharge-Appeal-Held
High Court has not committed a11y en'Ol-As foundation for discharge was
production of fake list it would cause stigma on respondents for ftllllre
D employment:-Piinciples of natural justice should be fo//owecf-Directions for
enquiry-Respondents should be given reasonable opportunit}-17iereafter
appropiiate orders should be passed with reasons in support thereof
Administrative Law-P1inciples of natural justice-Applicability of
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5382 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.91 of the Calcutta High
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 682 of 1987.
F
Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das for the Appellants.
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and Ms. Sarla Chandra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
The admitted position is that the respondents came to be appointed
by proceedings dated April 25/26, 1985 as Constables in the State Armed
Police. The basis for their recruitment was the list furnished by the Employ-
ment Exchange, Katwa. They are discharged from the service by proceed-
H ings effective from January 1, 1986 which came to be challenged in the
530
I t
(
j
'
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICEv. MRITYUNJOY SARKAR
531
flig!:t Court. The High Court has set aside the order of discharge .. On A
appeal, it was confirmed in MFA No. 682/1987 by order dated March 26,
1991. Thus this appeal by special leave.
In the discharge order, it was stated that the respondents had exer-
cised the power under Rule 34 (b) of the West Bengal Service Regulations
(Part I) and the instructions contained in Memo No. 4145(2) dated Novem-
B
ber 22, 1985 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, West Bengal. It
is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his letter dated
September 517, 1985 had informed the appellants that the list of the names
forwarded by the Employment Exchange was fake one and their names
were fabricated as they do not correspond to the entries in the Employ-
C
ment Exchange. Consequently, he directed the appellants to take action
according to rules. It would thus be clear that the foundation for discharge
is production of fake list of persons from employment exchange for recruit-
ment as Armed Reserved Constables. If that is accepted, then it would
cause a stigma on the respondents for future recruitment as they have D
prodQced fictitious record to secure employment. Principles of natural
justice require that they should be given reasonable opportunity of repre-
sentation in the enquiry to be conducted and appropriate orders with
reasons in support thereof need to be passed. It is settled legal position
and the said procedure has not been followed. Under these circumstances,
the High Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal It E
would be open to the appellants to issue notice to all the respondents and
consider their case and then pass appropriate orders with reasons, however
brief they may be, in support thereof within a period of six weeks from the
date of the receipt of this order. The said notice shall be given to the
respondents stating the grounds on which they seek to discharge them and F
the respondents are directed to submit their objections, if any, and the
material in support thereof within one month thereafter. After receipt of
the objections, the appellants are directed to consider the objections and
pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter and to communicate
the same to all the respondents with acknowledgement due. The order, as
stated earlier, should contain concise reasons in support of their con- G
clusions.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed. H
Lex