Sri Chittaranjan Roy vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4920 Cal

20th September,
 2021
 (AK)
 7

                                 W.P.C.T. 494 of 2013


                                  Sri Chittaranjan Roy
                                          Vs.
                                  Union of India & Ors.


                          Mr. S.K. Datta
                          Mr. Bareen Chatterjee
                                                     ...For the Petitioner.

                          Mr. Partha Ghosh
                                                  ...For the Respondents.

The grievance of the present writ petitioner is

primarily that the petitioner was terminated from service

on the premise of records apparently obtained from the

primary school where the petitioner was initially

admitted, thereby disbelieving the admit card issued to

the petitioner by the West Bengal Board of Secondary

Education, which was relied on by the petitioner at the

time of his employment.

The further reason on which the termination

occurred was that, allegedly, the younger brother of the

petitioner, namely one Ajoy Kumar Ray had already been

superannuated, and the date of birth of the said person

shows that, for him to be younger than the petitioner, the

date of birth as given at the time of appointment by the

petitioner has to be disbelieved.

Upon being given chance to show cause, the

petitioner had categorically stated by an affidavit on oath

the attending circumstances, due to which the name of

the own elder brother of the petitioner was recorded

incorrectly as that of the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, the petitioner contends

that subsequently, when the petitioner joined secondary

school, the appropriate age and name of the petitioner

were furnished and, accordingly, the petitioner was

issued the admit card in-question by the Board.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

respondents that the affidavit authored by the uncle of

the petitioner, corroborating the explanation given by the

petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, was

disbelieved. The respondents reiterated the previous

position as held by them, by repeating that the younger

brother of the petitioner had retired earlier, on which

basis the age of the petitioner, as disclosed by him at the

time of employment, was disbelieved.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

ample opportunity of hearing was afforded to the

petitioner. However, the primary school records of the

petitioner also show that the age given by the petitioner,

as recorded in the admit card, was incorrect.

It appears from the arguments of the parties as well

as the materials-on-record that the petitioner's uncle gave

a corroborating certificate, which reiterates the clear case

of the petitioner in his reply that his elder brother's name

in the primary school records was wrongly recorded

synonymously with the petitioner, which gave rise to the

error in the primary school records.

The petitioner, in support of his contention, had also

furnished death certificate of his elder brother and

categorically stated that there was a family feud with Sri

Ajoy Kumar Ray, the complainant in the matter, who was

the step-brother of the petitioner and, with a mala fide

intention, lodged the complaint.

In view of the respective contentions of the parties, it

is evident that the respondents acted in a perverse

manner, in merely paying lip service to their duty by

discarding the affidavit of the petitioner's uncle and

relying on the basis of the date of superannuation of the

said Ajoy Kumar Ray as sacrosanct.

However, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court

in O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others reported at

(2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 180, which has been relied

on by learned counsel for the petitioner, even on minor

charges of a factual nature, if denied by the delinquent

employee, an enquiry should be called for. The present

case stands on a more serious pedestal, since the charge

resulted in termination of the petitioner.

In the present case, certain specific averments were

made by the petitioner in explanation to the show cause

notice, which included the alleged mala fides of the

complainant and that there was an error in the primary

school records which were subsequently rectified in the

secondary school records.

In such view of the matter, the respondents ought to

have enquired into the veracity of the contentions of the

petitioner, not only by undertaking a thorough enquiry

into the records of the secondary school of the petitioner

but also regarding the validity of the petitioner's

contention that the recording in the primary school

records was erroneous. In the absence of such an enquiry

being held, the impugned decision to terminate the

petitioner, merely on the basis of the superannuation

date of the said Ajoy Kumar Ray, was patently vitiated in

law.

Accordingly, W.P.C.T. 494 of 2013 is allowed,

thereby setting aside the order dated May 15, 2013

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Calcutta

in O.A. No.578 of 2011 and remanding the matter back to

the respondent nos.5 and 6, that is, the Senior Divisional

Officer and the Divisional Personal Officer, Eastern

Railway, Sealdah Division, who shall undertake a detailed

enquiry as indicated above and shall come to an

appropriate conclusion as regards the veracity of the age

certificate given by the petitioner, upon giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner if necessary.

Since it is submitted that the petitioner has, in the

meantime, reached his age of superannuation, in the

event it is found after the enquiry that the petitioner's

admit card carried the valid date of birth of the petitioner,

the petitioner shall be considered to have continued in

service till the date of his superannuation and shall be

disbursed all the back wages as well as appropriate retiral

benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled in the

event his service continued till his date of superannuation

as per the initial declaration of date of birth given by the

petitioner.

Such enquiry shall be conducted as expeditiously as

possible, keeping in view the age and the financial

condition of the petitioner and shall be completed

positively within three months from this date.

The conclusion arrived at by the respondent nos.5

and 6 in that regard shall be communicated to the

petitioner immediately thereafter.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)