Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the discharge of respondents who had been appointed as Constables in the State Armed Police, West Bengal, and the subsequent challenge to their discharge on the ground that they had secured employment through a fake employment exchange list. The appellants were the Director General of Police and others, while the respondents were the discharged constables. The respondents had been appointed by proceedings dated April 25/26, 1985, based on a list furnished by the Employment Exchange, Katwa. They were discharged from service effective January 1, 1986, by an order which stated that 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, had been exercised. The discharge order was challenged in the High Court, which set it aside. The appellants' appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court in M.F.A. No.682 of 1987 by order dated March 26, 1991, leading to the special leave appeal before the Supreme Court. The factual foundation for the discharge was that the Commissioner of Labour, by letter dated September 5/7, 1985, had informed the appellants that the list of names forwarded by the Employment Exchange was fake and that the names were fabricated, as they did not correspond to the entries in the Employment Exchange. Consequently, the Commissioner directed the appellants to take action according to rules. The Supreme Court observed that if the ground of discharge based on a fake list was accepted, it would cast a stigma on the respondents for future recruitment, as they had allegedly produced fictitious records to secure employment. The court held that principles of natural justice required that the respondents be given a reasonable opportunity of representation in the enquiry to be conducted and that appropriate orders with reasons in support thereof needed to be passed. The court noted that this settled legal position had not been followed. It found that the High Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal. However, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that it directed the appellants to issue notice to all respondents stating the grounds on which they sought to discharge them, and to permit the respondents to submit objections and material in support thereof within one month thereafter. The appellants were directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders with concise reasons within six weeks thereafter and to communicate the same to the respondents with acknowledgment due. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Discharge from Service - Stigma - Principles of Natural Justice - West Bengal Service Regulations, Part I, Rule 34(b) - Discharge of Constables on ground that employment exchange list was fake and fabricated cast stigma on future recruitment; such stigmatic discharge required notice, opportunity of representation, and reasoned order. The High Court correctly set aside the discharge order for non-compliance with natural justice. Held that the procedure followed was invalid for absence of natural justice (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Opportunity of Representation - Enquiry Procedure - Directions to Employer - West Bengal Service Regulations, Part I, Rule 34(b) - The Supreme Court directed the appellants to issue notice stating grounds of discharge, allow respondents to submit objections within one month, and pass reasoned orders within six weeks thereafter, communicating with acknowledgment due. The order should contain concise reasons. Held that a fresh enquiry with natural justice was required before any discharge (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether discharge of constables on the ground of fake employment exchange list without affording an opportunity of representation and passing a reasoned order violated principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; appellants permitted to issue fresh notice stating grounds of discharge to respondents within six weeks; respondents to submit objections within one month; appellants to pass reasoned orders within six weeks thereafter; no costs.
Law Points
- A discharge order based on fake employment exchange list casts stigma and requires compliance with principles of natural justice
- opportunity of representation and reasoned order are mandatory
- failure vitiates discharge.
