Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajit Prasad vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 February, 2014
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
19.02.2014
S.L-5(KB).
W.P. 18350 (W) of 2008
Ajit Prasad
Versus
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Anami Sikdar,
Mr. Animesh Bhttacharyya
... For the petitioner
Mr. Khairul Alam
... For the State respondents.
Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerjee ... For the respondent No.7 The instant writ application was admitted by an order dated 25th September, 2008 with a direction upon the parties to exchange affidavits. Till date no such affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the respondent no.7.
This writ application had been preferred challenging an order dated 4th April, 2008 issued by the respondent no. 3.
In the writ application, it had, inter alia, been averred that the petitioner participated in the selection process and in the interview held on 23rd August, 2007 for appointment to a Group-D post in Baram High School (hereinafter referred to as the said School) and thereafter the school authorities prepared a panel in which the petitioner stood in the second position.
2Aggrieved by the said panel, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.3 on 10th Sepember, 2007 and as the said representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court through a writ application being W.P. 21358 (W) of 2007.
The said writ application was disposed of by an order dated 19th December, 2007 directing the respondent no. 3 to cause an enquiry before approving the said panel and to give hearing to the petitioner, and the private respondent as well as the school authorities before taking a decision on the said panel. In terms of the said order dated 19th December, 2007, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 4th April, 2008 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application.
In the instant writ application, the petitioner had categorically averred that the first empanelled candidate, being the respondent no.7 was the wife of the Secretary and that the said Secretary had an active role to play in such empanelment of his wife in the first position.
Mr. Sikdar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the enquiry report on the basis of which the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order dated 4th April, 2008 was not supplied to the petitioner and he was not granted any opportunity to deal with the same.
Mr. Sikdar further submits that the Class-VIII certificate of the respondent no.7 on the basis of which 3 she had applied for participation in the selection process was a forged one.
Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the private respondent no.7, submits that the non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in as much as the decision of the respondent no. 3 was based on document as produced by the school authorities.
Mr. Banerjee further submits that the allegations made by the petitioner to the effect that the husband of the respondent no.7 was the Secretary of the said school at the time of interview, is absolutely unfounded and that such allegation does not stand fortified through appropriate document.
In support of his argument to the effect that the non-supply of the enquiry report had not prejudiced the petitioner in any manner, Mr. Banerjee placed reliance upon the following judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
i) Managing Director, E.C.L. Hyderabad -
vs-B. Karunakaran , reported in 1993 (4) S.C.C. page 727.
ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus S. Balaakrishnan, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. Page 2400.
iii) Nirma Industries Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India reported in (2013) 8 S.C. C. Page 20.
4The judgements relied upon by Mr. Banerjee are distinguishable on facts and the same have no manner of application in the instant case.
Mr. Alam, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State authorities submits that the petitioner did not make any prayer for supply of the enquiry report and that as such the said enquiry report was not supplied to him.
Heard the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. A perusal of the order dated 4th April, 2008 passed by the respondent no.3 would reveal that the findings of the said respondent no.3 was primarily based on the enquiry report, a copy of which were not given to the petitioner. A perusal of the earlier order of this Court passed on 19th December, 2007 would also reveal that considering the allegations levelled by the petitioner, the Court thought it fit that an enquiry needs to be conducted prior to approval of the concerned panel. The fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner stands admitted by Mr. Alam and in such circumstances, in my opinion, the said respondent no.3 ought to have given a copy of the said enquiry report, conducted in terms of the earlier order of this Court, to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have got an opportunity to deal with the same.
In my opinion, the non-supply of the said enquiry report to the petitioner is an action violative of the principles of natural justice.
5Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 4th April, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 3 on the limited ground of non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner prior to issuance of the said impugned order.
The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to supply a copy of the said enquiry report to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter the respondent no.3 would consider the petitioner's claim upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the school authorities and the respondent no.7 and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )