Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MRITYUNJOY SARKAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 241 1996 SCALE (3)388
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 Employment
Exchange, Katwa. They are discharged from the service by
proceedings effective from January 1, 1986 which came to be
challenged in the High Court. The High Court has set aside
the order of discharge. On 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 exercised the power under Rule 34 [b] of the
West Bengal Service Regulations [Part I] and the
instructions contained in Memo No.4145[2] dated November 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 5/7, 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
Employment 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
recruitment as Armed Reserved Constables. If that is
accepted, then it would cause a stigga on the respondents
for future recruitment as they have produced fictitious
record to secure employment. Principles of natural justice
require that they should be given reasonable opportunity of
representation 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appeal. It 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 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
conclusions.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.