The Supreme Court has directed police in all states and Union Territories to submit verification reports of government employees within six months of their joining duty as it set aside the termination of a Bengal government employee who was sacked after 26 years of service based on a belated report by the state police.
A candidate’s appointment can be regularised only after a report verifying his nationality, character and antecedents is submitted, the apex court has ruled.
“The given factual matrix would also compel this court to issue a direction to the police official(s) of all the states to complete the enquiry and file report as regards the character, antecedents, nationality, genuineness of the documents produced by the candidates selected for appointment to the government service, etc., within a stipulated time provided in the statute/G.O., or in any event, not later than six months from the date of their appointment,” a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said in a judgment.
The bench passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Bengal government employee Basudev Dutta challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that had upheld his termination by quashing an order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
“This appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. As a sequel, the service benefits which remain unpaid as on date be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,” the apex court said.
According to Dutta, he came to India from the erstwhile East Pakistan when he was 16 and his father was issued a migration certificate on May 19, 1969, by the authority concerned.
Dutta said he joined the Kadambini Block Primary Health Centre in Burdwan as a paramedical ophthalmic assistant in 1985 after being appointed by the director of health services of the Bengal government. The department also received a satisfactory report of his medical and police verification, he submitted.
However, on July 7, 2010, the police submitted another verification report to the department stating that he was “unsuitable” for employment. Dutta was served a memo on August 23, 2010, and directed to submit his defence within 10 days.
In response, the appellant sent the details of his candidature on September 9, 2010, but he was terminated by an order dated February 11, 2011, without any inquiry.
“Curiously, in all these documents, including the showcause notice, no reason was mentioned as to why the appellant was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post of ophthalmic assistant,” Justice
Mahadevan observed.
“Thus... 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 and hence, his termination order cannot be sustained in the eye of law; and accordingly, set aside the order of termination,” Justice Mahadevan said.