Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant also emphatically submitted that it is mandatory on the part of the police authority to submit the police verification report within a period of three months from the date of appointment. Whereas, in the present case, though the appellant joined the service on 06.03.1985, the verification report was communicated by the police to the department only on 07.07.2010, that too, just two months prior to the date of retirement of the appellant. Hence, there was inordinate delay on the part of the police authority for submission of verification report to the appointing authority. 4.2. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly set aside the order of termination. However, the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the State by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court.

5.1. Elaborating further, the learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) submitted that it was clearly stated in the appointment order that the same is subject to satisfactory reports of police verification and medical examination; though the appellant cleared the medical examination, his police verification report was still awaited; upon receipt of the communication from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch, Kolkata, vide Memo No.1899/S.231-04/SA-I/VR dated 07.07.2010, pursuant to the secret verification report dated 25.05.2010 of the Government, to the effect that the appellant was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post in question, the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, issued a show cause notice by way of memo dated 23.08.2010, calling upon the appellant to submit his defence; accordingly, the appellant submitted his reply on 09.09.2010; being dissatisfied with the same, the authority concerned terminated the appellant from service with immediate effect on 11.02.2011. Thus, according to the learned counsel, only after receipt of the reply submitted by the appellant and upon considering the same, the termination order came to be issued and hence, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the order of termination passed by the authority concerned, as affirmed by the High Court, are three-fold, though interlinked and intertwined. Firstly, the appellant claimed his nationality as Indian on the strength of the migration certificate dated 19.05.1969 issued in favour of his father. Secondly, in the show cause notice, there was no mention as to why the appellant was declared as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the Government service; the alleged secret police verification report was not served on the appellant; and no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the appellant to defend his stand and hence, there was total violation of the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, the appellant joined the service in the year 1985, but the police verification report, which was supposed to have been filed, within a period of three months from the date of appointment, was submitted to the department only in the year 2010 and thus, there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the police authority in submission of the same.

13. As far as the third contention is concerned, it appears to us that the appellant joined the post of Ophthalmic Assistant on 06.03.1985 upon production of satisfactory report of medical examination and police verification roll. Yet, the police verification report, which was supposed to have been filed within three months from the date of initial appointment of the appellant, was filed only in the year 2010, i.e., after 25 years of service and just two months prior to the date of his retirement. Placing reliance on such report, he was terminated from service. In view of the enormous delay on the part of the respondent authorities in submission of the verification report, the appellant has been rendered ineligible to receive his pensionary benefits, though he had put in 26 years of unblemished service. The respondents in their reply affidavit categorically admitted about the inordinate delay occasioned to ascertain the unsuitability of the appellant for appointment to the Government service. However, they did not assign any reason much less valid reason for the same. Such a callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be countenanced by us. As held by us in paragraph 12.6 supra, the order of termination passed against the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained. In view of the same, the second limb of the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after a period of 14 years from the date of retirement, would not serve any purpose. Hence, the appellant is entitled to receive all the service benefits that are duly payable to him. 13.1. The given factual matrix would also compel this Court to issue a direction to the police official(s) of all the States to complete the enquiry and file report as regards the character, antecedents, nationality, genuineness of the documents produced by the candidates selected for appointment to the Government service, etc., within a stipulated time provided in the statute / G.O., or in any event, not later than six months from the date of their appointment. It is made clear that only upon verification of the credentials of the candidates, their appointments will have to be regularized so as to avoid further complications, as in the case on hand.