Sri Jayanta Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1449 Cal

27.02.2023          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  DL-43           CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                  APPELLATE SIDE
   Ct.21
                          WPA 15632 of 2021

                             Sri Jayanta Ghosh
                                 Vs.
                    The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Mr. Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay
                                         ....for the petitioner.

                   Ms. Chandreyi Alam,
                   Ms. Runu Mukherjee
                          ....for the respondents/Union of India.

The petitioner's grievance is that despite being

acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court Katwa

on December 9, 2020 in a criminal proceedings his

prayer for reinstatement was not considered by the

Inspector General of Police, CRPF. The petitioner's

prayer for reinstatement was rejected by an impugned

order dated May 27, 2021 since the petitioner has

approached the authorities after 13 years. The time

to prefer an appeal was 3 months. It was recorded in

the impugned order that as per the provisions of 5

(2)(a) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service),

Rules 1965 "except in special circumstances, which

should be recorded in writing, no case shall be

reopened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three

months".

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that his

case was one where special circumstances should

have been considered since he was acquitted in the

Katwa P. S. Case 155 of 2002.

Ms. Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents submits that the petitioner was

terminated from services since he was engaged in

temporary service and could only pray for

confirmation after completion of 3 years of service.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the

Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) provisionally and

could be terminated without assigning any reason.

Copy of the written instructions handed over in Court

today by Ms. Alam is retained with the records.

After considering the rival submissions of the

parties and the materials placed on record, this Court

finds that by a judgment passed by a Coordinate

Bench on August 1, 2008 it has been held that the

petitioner's appointment did not have any existence in

the eye of law since a criminal case was pending at

the time of his appointment. The petitioner in the

verification roll furnished by him regarding the

questions whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted,

kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted

by a court of law or whether any case was pending

against him in any court of law declared "No" as

answers to such queries. The Hon'ble Coordinate

Bench held where thousands of unemployed youths

are standing in the queue for some sort of

employment, there was hardly any reason for showing

undue sympathy to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the

writ petition being WP No. 17283 (W) of 2007 was

dismissed. The said decision was upheld by the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 171 of

2009. The Hon'ble Appeal Court was of the view that

the very entry of the appellant was wrong. He gave

incorrect details at the time of entry in service. He

made suppression of facts. Therefore, the authority

was entitled to terminate him at any time prior to his

regularisation without proceeding against him

departmentally on that score.

This Court finds that there is no arbitrariness or

perversity in the order dated May 27, 2021 since it

clearly records that the petitioner has furnished false

information to the department and denied the

involvement in any Court/criminal case in column 12

of the character and verification roll. Therefore, the

authority did not consider the petitioner's case to be

one in which the special circumstances rule may be

applied.

This Court relies on Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in

(2003) 3 SCC 437 for observing that a candidate

having suppressed material information and/or giving

false information cannot claim right to continue in

service.

In the light of the discussions above, this Court

finds that the writ petition is wholly misconceived

and, therefore, WPA 15632 of 2021 is dismissed.

Since no affidavits have been directed to be

exchanged in the writ petition, all the allegations

contained therein are deemed not to have been

admitted by the respondents.

All parties shall act on the server copies of

this order duly downloaded from the official

Website of this Hon'ble Court.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties upon

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)