SANJAY DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the Order No. 053/TSR-6 /Disch/Estt./03/00853-63 dated 12.02.2003 terminating/discharging the petitioner from the service on the ground of adverse report against him is called into question in this writ petition.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the filing of this writ petition may be briefly started at the very outset. The petitioner belongs to a Schedule Caste community. He was appointed to the post of Rifleman in 6 Bn. Tripura State Rifles on temporary basis on 25.04.2001 and joined the post on 21.05.2001. The appointment order stipulated that this final appointment and continu- ation in service would be subject to medical fitness, educational qualification certificate and C & A (character and antecedent) report verification without any adverse (report?) and further that he was obliged to fill up attention form. In the course of verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, i.e., Kamalpur PS. Case No. 64/99 under Section 147/148/353/307/427 IPC, for which charge sheet was submitted against him in a court of law. As against item No. 13(a), (b) and (c) of the attestation form, he mentioned "No" though he was arrested, prosecuted and detained in connection with the aforesaid case prior to his appointment. The attestation form was signed by him on 16.05.2001. Thereafter, the matterwas sent to the Superintendent of Police, Dhalai for necessary verification. The S.P., Dhalai after making the verification, reported by his letter dated 17.11.2002 that the petitioner was involved in the said criminal case and was charge sheeted. Apparently acting on this report that the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order of discharge, which is now under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that: Rule 14(3) of the Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 ('TSR Rules' for short) enables the appointing authority to terminate the service of a member of the Rifles in case of adverse report of his character and antecedents but such powers must be exercised after following the principles of natural justice. What he submits is that when the termination of a temporary employee like the petitioner is stigmatic, even if the rules do not incorporate principles of natural justice, the same must necessarily be read into such provision. So read, an opportunity of hearing should have be given to the petitioner, and having failed to do so in the instant case, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the arrest of the petitioner and his being charge sheeted in the case have lost their relevance after his acquittal from the case by this Court vide the judgment dated 15.09.2003 in Crl. A. No. 76 of 2002. He further submits that the discharge of the petitioner from service without waiting for final disposal of the criminal case is arbitrary. Finally, it is urged by the learned senior counsel that the impugned order is violative of Article 311 (2) and Article 14 of the Constitution and is a accordingly liable to be quashed and reinstated to his post with full monetary and service benefits.