Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on December 5, 2024 issued a direction to the police officials of all the States to complete the enquiry and file report with regard to the character, antecedents, nationality, genuineness of the documents produced by the candidates selected for appointment to the Government service, within a maximum period of six months.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and R Mahadevan also clarified that only upon verification of the credentials of the candidates, their appointments will have to be regularised so as to avoid further complications.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Basudev Datta against the Calcutta High Court's judgment of August 16, 2023, which allowed a writ petition by the West Bengal government against the State Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside his termination.

The appellant he was aged about 16 years, when he along with his father by name Hariananda Dutta, came to India from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and his father was issued with a Migration Certificate on May 19, 1969 by the authority concerned. Subsequently, he joined Bangabasi College, Calcutta and passed the Pre-University Examination in Science in May, 1971 under the University of Calcutta.

Thereafter, he got admission in Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Calcutta and successfully completed Ophthalmic Assistant Course in 1984. Later, he participated in the selection process and was appointed as Para Medical Ophthalmic Assistant by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal by an order on February 21, 1985. He joined at Kadambini Block Primary Health Centre, Monteswar, Burdwan on March 06, 1985.

However, just two months before his retirement, a verification report was communicated by the police to the department only on July 07, 2010 stating his nationality could not be determined as Indian, resulting into his termination on February 11, 2011.

Considering his plea, the bench pointed out a person like the appellants can't be treated as illegal migrants in view of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020, while upholding the tribunal's order of termination passed against the appellant after finding it as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice that cannot be sustained.

"We find that the Tribunal was right in observing that without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to explain his case before the authority, the appellant was terminated... However, the High Court erroneously allowed the writ petition filed by the State government," the bench said.

The court noted before passing the termination order, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the appellant to defend his stand effectively.

In the case, the bench noted the police verification report, which was supposed to have been filed within three months from the date of initial appointment of the appellant, was filed only in the year 2010, i.e., after 25 years of service and just two months prior to the date of his retirement.

"The respondents in their reply affidavit categorically admitted about the inordinate delay occasioned to ascertain the unsuitability of the appellant for appointment to the Government service. However, they did not assign any reason much less valid reason for the same. Such a callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be countenanced by us," the bench said.

The court, however, modified the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after a period of 14 years from the date of retirement, saying it would not serve any purpose. Hence, it held the appellant would be entitled to receive all the service benefits that are duly payable to him, within a period of three months.