Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Union Of India & Ors vs Binoy Krishna on 23 September, 2024
1
23.09.2024
Ct. No. 11
rrc
WPCT 242 of 2023
(Union of India & Ors. Vs. Binoy Krishna
Jana & Ors.)
Mr. Souvik Nandy
Mr. Madhu Jana
..... For the petitioners
Mr. Ujjal Ray
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty
..... For the respondents
The present writ petition has been preferred by the
Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order
dated 27th February, 2019 passed by the learned
Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being
OA 1321 of 2016 and the orders dated 26th November,
2021 passed in modification applications preferred by the
respondents herein.
Records reveal that alleging irregularities in a
selection process, the petitioners herein decided to cancel
the appointment of the respondents and others and
issued show cause notice. Such action was challenged by
the respondents before the learned Tribunal and the said
OA was disposed of by an order dated 27th August, 1999
setting aside an order dated 20th August, 1999 and the
show cause notice dated 27th August, 1999. Challenging
the said order, the authorities approached the Hon'ble
High Court and the writ petition was disposed of by an
order dated 28th March, 2011 modifying the order of the
learned Tribunal to the extent that 'the writ petitioner will
be at liberty to proceed de novo against the concerned
appointees against whom vigilance report has been filed
pointing illegality in selection process...'. Subsequent
thereto, fresh show cause notices were issued and the
appointments were set aside by an order passed by the
Review Committee on 24th August, 16. Challenging inter
alia the said order, the respondents again approached
the learned Tribunal and by an order dated 27th
February, 2019, the OA was disposed of observing, inter
alia, as follows:-
'10. In our considered opinion, the
Respondents have gone haywire while
misinterpreting the tenor of the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court in proceeding de novo against
the applicants in absence of any vigilance report
against them. Although show cause notices were
issued to them and opportunity of hearing was
also afforded, it was evidently a futile exercise
undertaken by the Respondents while
misdirecting themselves.
11. Therefore, for the ends of justice, and in
view of the fact that the present applicants, who
belong to SC and OBC categories, have already
rendered 20 years of service and some of them
have even earned promotion as Postman,
although on provisional basis, we quash the order
issued on 24.08.2016, impugned in the present
O.A., and direct the authorities to allow them to
continue on the basis of their selection made in
1998 as allowed to one Jayanta Kumar Pal, the
applicant in O.A. No. 1091/1999.
12. Let appropriate orders be issued within
two months from the date of communication of
this order.'
Thereafter, the respondents preferred modification
applications with a prayer to incorporate the Unreserved
Category in the order dated 27th February, 2019. No
objection was raised by the petitioners and such prayer
was considered and allowed by orders dated 26th
November, 2021 passed in the modification applications.
Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners strenuously argues that there were several
irregularities in the selection process and taking
advantage of such circumstances, the respondents got
selected. Pointing out the illegalities and the
irregularities, the petitioners issued show cause notices
and granted opportunity of hearing to the respondents
prior to issuance of the final order impugned in the
present OA. Being oblivious of such sequence of facts, the
order of termination and the show cause notice were
interfered with.
He argues that the learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate that there were specific allegations against the
respondents in the vigilance report which disentitled
them from appointment to the concerned posts. Such
selection of the respondents was through a back door
process and was contrary to the constitutional scheme.
Mere continuance in such posts for a particular period of
time did not confer any right upon the respondents to be
regularized. In appreciation of such proposition of law,
the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the
order of termination. In support of such contention
reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dayalal and Ors., reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 429.
He submits that the officer who was responsible for
such irregularities and illegalities was hauled up in a
disciplinary proceeding and penalized and in such
circumstances, no interference was called for and the
learned Tribunal erroneously exercised discretion in
favour of the respondents. Such arguments, as urged,
were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding
was returned on the same.
Drawing our attention to the vigilance report brought
on record by the petitioners, Mr. Nandy submits that it
would be explicit that there were grave irregularities in
the selection process and the respondents taking
advantage of the same, availed appointment to the
concerned posts. Upon detection of such irregularities,
the petitioners rightly terminated the appointment of the
respondents by an order dated 24th August, 2016.
Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents denies and disputes the contention of Mr.
Nandy and submits that irregularities in the selection
process, as alleged, were due to administrative lapses in
which the respondents had no role to play. The order of
termination had been issued being oblivious of the
specific direction of a coordinate Bench of this Court in
WPCT 64 of 2002 wherein it was, inter alia, observed that
'the writ petitioner will be at liberty to proceed de novo
against the concerned appointees against whom vigilance
report has been filed pointing illegality in selection
process...'.
Mr. Ray argues that the petitioners travelled beyond
such direction of the Hon'ble High Court and took steps
against the respondents against whom there was no
specific allegation in the vigilance report. In the said
conspectus, the appointment of the respondents could
not have been terminated.
He further submits that there was an inadvertent
error towards insertion of Unreserved category in
paragraph 11 of the order impugned and as such, on the
basis of the modification applications, the Unreserved
Category was included and there is no infirmity in such
direction moreso when the petitioners did not raise any
objection.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and considered the materials on
record.
The respondents are serving in their respective posts
for about 20 years. At this stage it would be iniquitous to
interfere with such appointment moreso when no action
was taken against a similarly situated incumbent,
namely, Jayanta Paul. It is explicit from the records that
irregularities alleged were administrative lapses on the
part of the petitioners. No contemporaneous material has
been brought on record to establish that there was any
specific allegation of bribery, cheating, corruption,
unauthorized transaction or any other illegality against
the respondents. The order of a coordinate Bench of this
Court in the earlier round of litigation allowed 'de novo
enquiry against the concerned appointees against whom
vigilance report has been filed pointing illegality in
selection process'. There is no such allegation against the
respondents in the vigilance report. The respondents
were selected on the basis of merit in a selection process
and as such the judgment delivered in the case of State of
Rajasthan (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts.
The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the
factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not
find any error, least to say any patent error of law in the
order impugned.
In the said conspectus, no interference is called for in
the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the service copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
