Mithu Hoque vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6597 Cal

23.12.2021           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
 Sl. No.55          CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
    (PP)                   APPELLATE SIDE

                             WPA 4068 of 2016
                                  with
                              CAN 1 of 2021

                               Mithu Hoque
                                   Vs.
                            Union of India & Ors.

                  Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena,
                  Md. Salahuddin,
                  Md. Ahsanuzzaman
                                                ....for the petitioner.
                  Mr. Dayashankar Mishra,
                  Mr. Amal Kumar Datta
                                                ....for Union of India.


                 The petitioner has sought for reinstatement in

             service to the post of Constable (Bugler) in Central

             Reserve Police Force (in short "CRPF") after quashing

             the order dated 3rd August, 2015 passed by the

             Appellate Authority on the petitioner's prayer for

             reinstatement. The order of the Appellate Authority is

             at page 41 of the writ petition. The facts in brief are

             as follows:-

                 The petitioner was issued a letter offering him

             appointment for the post of Constable (Bugler) in

             CRPF on 28th April, 2014 purely temporary and

             subject to verification of the testimonials and identity

             of the petitioner. It was clearly stated in the said offer

             letter that    the   appointment    is   also   subject   to

             condition that there is no criminal or civil case

             pending against the petitioner or that the petitioner's
                      2




name does not exist in wanted persons' list. The offer

letter is at page 31 of the writ petition and had been

issued after the petitioner had been provisionally

selected for the post on the basis of the recruitment

held at Group Centre, CRPF, Siliguri, West Bengal.

The petitioner as per the offer letter was directed to

report to Group Centre, CRPF, Siliguri, if the

petitioner accepted the conditions mentioned therein.

The petitioner duly reported at the venue prior to the

last date fixed in the offer letter for reporting.    The

petitioner was thereafter sent for training at the

Recruitment    Training     Centre   (in   short   "RTC"),

Neemuch.      The petitioner was thereafter served a

notice of termination on 23rd June, 2015 under the

provisions of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service

(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred

to as 1965 Rules).       The termination was with effect

from the date of expiry of a period of one month from

the date on which the said notice was served.         The

petitioner    thereafter     made     an    appeal     for

reinstatement under the provisions of 1965 Rules

which was rejected as stated hereinabove by the order

dated 15th October, 2015.         The writ petition was

dismissed at the threshold on 14th March, 2016. The

petitioner preferred an appeal therefrom which was

allowed by a judgment and order dated 4th November,
                           3




2019 by setting aside the order dated 14th March,

2016.

    After going through the order passed by the

Division     Bench,   I       find   that   the   terms   of   the

appointment of the petitioner, as recorded by the

Division Bench, is required to be scrutinised.                 The

offer letter gives the terms for appointment, which

was required to be accepted by the petitioner. After

going through the offer letter in paragraph 4 thereof, I

find a reference of an appointment order.                      The

appointment order has not been disclosed by either of

the parties.      There is no specific averment from

neither the petitioner nor from the respondents that

there is no appointment order. The general

perception is that if a selected candidate with the offer

letter reports at the venue within the stipulated date

and time, his testimonials are prima facie verified and

thereafter the future course takes place.

In the instant case, the petitioner reported at the

venue with the offer letter thereby signifying his

acceptance of the terms mentioned therein and was

thereafter sent to RTC, Neemuch for basic training.

It, therefor, appears to this Court that there may be

further documents issued to the petitioner after he

reported at the venue at Siliguri by dint of which he

was sent for basic training at RTC, Neemuch. These

documents may elaborate the terms of appointment.

No such document is on record. There is no

averment from either side as to whether any further

document exists being issued by CRPF to the

petitioner subsequent to his reporting at Siliguri with

the offer letter. Before the matter can be finally

heard, the existence of any further document is

required to be ascertained.

The respondents are directed to file a

supplementary affidavit stating the procedure

adopted after the petitioner reported with the offer

letter at Group Centre, CRPF, Siliguri. The

supplementary affidavit shall clearly indicate whether

any further documents subsequent to the petitioner

reporting at Group Centre, CRPF, Siliguri were issued

to him and on the basis of what documents the

petitioner travelled and joined for basic training at

RTC, Neemuch. The respondents shall also spell out

whether the petitioner was appointed on temporary

basis against a sanctioned civil post and, if so, on

what terms.

The supplementary affidavit shall be filed by 20th

January, 2022 with a copy to the petitioner.

Let this matter appear on 27th January, 2022

under the same heading.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to use an

opposition to the supplementary affidavit, if so

advised, before the next date fixed.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)