Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sabhajeet vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 May, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
2016 W.P. 8161 (W) of 2016
Sabhajeet
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder,
Mr. Pratik Majumder
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Niranjoy Kumar Singh
... for the Respondents.
The petitioner has brought to light an alarming set of facts which is compounded by the strange stand taken in court on behalf of the Railway Protection Special Force.
The petitioner was given a provisional appointment in the RPSF in 2011 and, after completion of the petitioner's initial training, he was under probation for a period of two years. During such time of probation, it was discovered that the petitioner had apparently furnished false information in the petitioner's application form and had produced a false OBC certificate dated August 3, 2005. The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated August 13, 2012 without initiating any disciplinary action since the petitioner had not been confirmed and was serving the period of probation.
It appears that the petitioner made a representation to the Inspector-General of the Force following which the commanding officer of the second battalion at Gorakhpur was required to investigate into the matter. The petitioner has appended copies of the correspondence exchanged between such commanding officer and the office of the Tehsildar in Khajani, District: Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. It is evident from such correspondence and the confirmation by the letters addressed by the office of the Tehsildar that the petitioner belongs to the Aahir caste and is recognised as a backward caste by the Government of India. It is also evident that the then Tehsildar, Yamuna Expressway Authority, Greater Noida, Anjani Kumar Singh, has certified that he had signed the certificate originally obtained by the petitioner.
Though the commanding officer of the second battalion at Gorakhpur initially thought that the stand taken by Anjani Kumar Singh was ambiguous, an unequivocal assertion was subsequently made by Anjani Kumar Singh 2 accepting that he had signed the certificate that had been issued to the petitioner. The office of the Tehsildar, Khajani also independently confirmed the petitioner's status.
In the light of it now appearing that there was no occasion to doubt the veracity of the OBC certificate that had been filed by the petitioner at the time applying for the post, it may be necessary for the order of termination or discharge of the petitioner to be undone in accordance with law.
Though the RPSF is represented, the only submission made is that once the services of an employee on probation were terminated, he would not be entitled to prefer an appeal or do anything to undo the order of termination. Such submission is exceptionable and cannot be accepted. It is inconceivable that an erroneous or an unfair order of termination would be passed against an employee on probation in the RPSF and merely because no appeal lies from an order terminating the services of an employee on probation, even a wronged employee would not be able to have a palpably erroneous order corrected.
In any event, such argument may not be open to the RPSF since it appears that subsequent to the petitioner's termination by the order dated August 13, 2012, inquiries have been conducted by the commanding officer of the second battalion at Gorakhpur who has described himself in the correspondence exchanged with the office of the Tehsildar, Khajani as the inquiry officer.
It cannot be appreciated as to what interest RPSF may have in the matter to deny the petitioner the opportunity to rejoin the Force despite it being evident from the letters issued by the office of the Tehsildar, Khajani that the OBC certificate relied upon by the petitioner was genuine.
An affidavit should be filed by the Director General of RPF, the second respondent herein, to indicate why the petitioner has not been informed in 2016 of the inquiry or investigation that way commenced subsequent to the petitioner's discharge or termination. The petition will appear on June 13, 2016. Since this order is pronounced in presence of Advocate for the RPSF, it is recorded that an adverse inference may be drawn against the Force in the event the affidavit is not forthcoming on the adjourned date.
( Sanjib Banerjee, J.)