MD. KHAIRUL MANDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the respondents being the Union of India and its officials for quashing the office order vide no. E-III/PF-KM/SSB/63rd BN/18/7329-41 dtd. 11/8/2018 whereby and whereunder the present petitioner was removed from his service by respondent no.6/authority as well as for quashing office order vide No. II/Estt./Dist/53rdBN/Ftr- Slg/2018/945-47 dtd. 16/1/2019 as issued by the Appellate Authority being respondent no.5 whereby the said Appellate Authority upheld the removal order of the writ petitioner from service thereby dismissing the said appeal preferred by the writ petitioner.

(2.) In support of the instant writ petition learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.31 and 32 of the writ petition being Annexure P1 which is the photocopy of certificate for OBC as issued in the name of the writ petitioner by SDO Sadar, Berhampore as per proforma prescribed by the respondents/authorities prior to his appointment in 'Sashastra Seema Bal' (in short 'SSB') by virtue of their recruitment application vide F no. 3/18/2011-P&P1 as published in the Employment News/ Rozgar Samachar dtd. 3/12/2011. It is further submitted that the present writ petitioner after crossing all the hurdles in the said recruitment process ultimately was offered with an appointment by a memorandum dtd. 27/5/2014 which was also being annexed in the instant writ petition at page no.33, being Annexure P2. It is contended further that all of a sudden the present writ petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dtd. 28/3/2018 by his employer/ superior i.e. respondent no.6 herein on the ground that the writ petitioner has furnished false or incorrect information of belonging to OBC category under Central List at the time of his appointment and thus failed to fulfill the requisite criteria required for selection to the post of Constable (GD) where the writ petitioner has joined as a probationer. It is further argued that pursuant to the direction of his superior the writ petitioner had duly replied to such show-cause notice however, the respondent no.6/authority was not satisfied with the reply as given by the present writ petitioner and thereafter by the impugned letter dtd. 11/8/2018 issued an order for removal from service of the writ petitioner.

(3.) The writ petitioner thereafter carried the matter to the Appellate Forum but the Appellate Authority also failed to consider such appeal in its proper perspective and thus wrongly affirmed the order of dismissal as passed by respondent no.6.