http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRITYUNJOY SARKAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   241        1996 SCALE  (3)388

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.      The admitted  position is  that the respondents came to be appointed  by proceedings  dated  April  25/26,  1985  as Constables in  the State  Armed Police.  The basis for their recruitment  was   the  list  furnished  by  the  Employment Exchange, Katwa.  They are  discharged from  the service  by proceedings effective  from January 1, 1986 which came to be challenged in  the High  Court. The High Court has set aside the order  of discharge.  On appeal, it was confirmed in MFA No.682/1987 by  order dated March 26, 1991. Thus this appeal by special leave.      In  the   discharge  order,  it  was  stated  that  the respondents had exercised the power under Rule 34 [b] of the West  Bengal   Service  Regulations   [Part   I]   and   the instructions contained in Memo No.4145[2] dated November 22, 1985 of  the Assistant  Inspector General  of  Police,  West Bengal. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his  letter dated  September 5/7,  1985 had  informed the appellants that  the list  of the  names  forwarded  by  the Employment Exchange  was  fake  one  and  their  names  were fabricated as  they do  not correspond to the entries in the Employment   Exchange.   Consequently,   he   directed   the appellants to  take action according to rules. It would thus be clear  that the foundation for discharge is production of fake  list   of  persons   from  employment   exchange   for recruitment  as   Armed  Reserved  Constables.  If  that  is accepted, then  it would  cause a  stigga on the respondents for future  recruitment as  they  have  produced  fictitious record to  secure employment.  Principles of natural justice require that  they should be given reasonable opportunity of representation  in   the  enquiry   to  be   conducted   and appropriate orders  with reasons  in support thereof need to be passed.  It  is  settled  legal  position  and  the  said procedure has  not been followed. Under these circumstances, the High Court had not committed any error in dismissing the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

appeal. It  would be  open to the appellants to issue notice to all the respondents and consider their case and then pass appropriate orders  with reasons, however brief they may be, in support  thereof within  a period  of six  weeks from the date of  the receipt of this order. The said notice shall be given to  the respondents  stating the grounds on which they seek to  discharge them  and the respondents are directed to submit their objections, if any, and the material in support thereof within  one month  thereafter. After  receipt of the objections, the  appellants are  directed  to  consider  the objections and  pass appropriate  orders  within  six  weeks thereafter  and   to  communicate   the  same   to  all  the respondents with  acknowledgement due.  The order, as stated earlier, should  contain concise reasons in support of their conclusions.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.