PARTHA BISWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment dtd. 19/9/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, preferred by one Partha Biswas (in short, Partha), being WPA 10531 of 2021 challenging inter alia an order of discharge dtd. 26/2/2021 passed by the respondent no.4.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that Partha participated in a selection process for appointment to the post of Constable (Band) under the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as RPF). He emerged to be successful and submitted the attestation form on 14/3/2020. Thereafter, he was sent for basic training on 7/12/2020 and upon successful completion of the same, while he was undergoing further professional training at Police Training Academy in Jaipur, he was abruptly released from such training vide memo dtd. 9/4/2021. Subsequent thereto, he was served with an order of discharge dtd. 26/2/2021 issued by the respondent no.4 alleging that he had suppressed factual information in the attestation form and in a self-declaration dtd. 31/12/2020 and referring to a report dtd. 14/1/2021 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police as sent by the District Magistrate vide memo dtd. 9/2/2021. Challenging the discharge order a legal notice was sent to the respondent no.4 on 11/3/2021 and Partha also submitted an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 21/4/2021. In response thereto, he was supplied the documents, as sought for. Thereafter, Partha submitted a representationdated 22/4/2021 through his learned advocate to the respondent no.4 for reinstatement stating inter alia that due to a bona fide mistake the particulars of the pending criminal case were not furnished. The said criminal case being Kalna Police Station Case No.563/16 dtd. 3/12/2016 under Sec. 498A/307/379/34 of IPC was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Partha's aunt, namely, Sujata Sarkar and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet dtd. 31/7/2021 was submitted under Sec. 498A/323/34 of IPC.

(3.) Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for appellant/Partha submits that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the appellant in answering the question as to whether he had been ever prosecuted as 'No' in clause 15 (i) (c) of the attestation form and in not furnishing the number of the criminal case which he had stated to be pending under clause 15 (i) (d) though the nature of pending criminal case was disclosed by him under clause 15 (ii) of the attestation form stating that 'the troubles of my family have been falsified and I am innocent. Case pending'. For such omission, the employer could not have arbitrarily discharged him from service. He was of a tender age on the date of the alleged incident. He along with his family members were illegally roped in. No specific overt act was attributed to him in the complaint and he also did not suffer incarceration. The order sheets of the said criminal case would reveal that not even a single witness has been examined and the matter is pending for more than five years. Without considering such facts, the respondent no. 4 in an arbitrary manner passed the order of discharge.