UNION OF INDIA Vs. BIPAD BHANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal filed by the Union of India and Ors. against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta arises out of the following facts :

(3.) The respondent, Bipad Bhanjan Gayen was selected for training as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force on 20th October, 1993 and pending verification in terms of his declaration in Form No.12 as to whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case, he was sent for training. The declaration aforesaid was verified by the Distarict Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) when it was revealed that he had been involved in FIR No.20/1993 Police Station, Usti, for an offence punisht able under Section 376 of the IPC and that another case under Section 417 of the IPC apparently on complaint was pending in Court. On receiving this information, the Chief Security Officer, RPF, Eastern Railway, Calcutta dpassed an order dated 10th July, 1995 terminating his services with immediate effect "because of his in volvement in police case, as reported by DM/Alipore and Supplression of this factual information in the attestation form by the candidate". Consequent to the aforesaid order, the services of respondent were terminated by a formal order dated 15th July, 1995. Subsequent to the aforesaid orders, the respondent was discharged in the FIR on 8th January, 1996 and it appears that a separate proceeding terminating the pros ecution under Section 417 of the IPC was also initiated. The orders dated 10th July, 1995 and 15th July, 1995 were challenged before the Calcutta High Court. The Union of India filed a detailed counter affidavit on 11th March, 1997 giving details of the verification report received from the District Magistrate. The learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 14th October, 1999, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders on the ground that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the petitioner had not been given any opportu nity of being heard before the orders had been made and as the orders were stigmatic and penal in nature they could not have been made without proper enquiry etc. An appeal was thereafter taken to the Division Bench which endorsed the findings of the learned Single Judge by observing that though a false declaration admittedly had been made by the respondent, but as the impugned order was stigmatic and visited the respondent with penal consequences, it was incumbent upon the employer to have given him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.