N.Vasanthi v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/81/2024 N. Vasanthi Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the Administration Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent nos.2&3 April 08, 2025 ( SR] Item No.20 As no one appears on behalf of the Administration, Ms. Babita Das, learned advocate, who usually appears for the Administration is requested to appear in the matter. Let her engagement be regularized.
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 22nd December, 2023 passed by the respondent no.3.
Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, as would be explicit from the memo dated 30th May, 2019 annexed at page 19 of the writ petition. Such appointment was temporary in nature. Prior to such appointment, she was asked to sign an attestation form. She simply put her signature in the attestation form as having studied upto Class VIII, she was not literate enough to understand each and every clause as incorporated in the said attestation form.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, he submits that after joining the said post and signing the attestation form, she came to learn that she had been implicated in a false criminal case and she immediately surrendered and was granted bail. He submits that about four years after such appointment, the petitioner was served with an order dated 22nd December, 2023 by which the respondent no.3 issued a notice of termination stating that such termination would be given effect to on forenoon of 22nd January, 2024.
He argues that in the impugned order no reason had been detailed and the same had been issued in hot haste without granting any opportunity of personal hearing and as such the same is not sustainable in law.
Ms. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate appearing for the BSNL authorities submits that the attestation form, as filled up by the petitioner, was forwarded to the police authorities and by a letter dated 6th July, 2022, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID) intimated the respondent no.3 that the petitioner was involved in PS Aberdeen Case Crime No.234/2014 dated 05th August, 2024 under sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. As such information was suppressed by the petitioner initially in the attestation form, the respondent no.3 issued the order impugned.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the attestation form, she submits it was incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the authorities about her involvement in the criminal proceeding and as such she has violated clause 2 as
incorporated under the heading 'Warning' in the attestation form.
In reply, Mr. Jayapal submits that the petitioner was neither detained nor convicted and was also not served any summon in connection with the criminal case. It is not a case that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed any information while filling up the attestation form.
Records reveal that the writ petition was initially taken up for hearing on 22nd January, 2024 when a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the parties to exchange their affidavits with a further direction that in the meantime, the petitioner will continue to work on temporary basis for a period of four months or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The said order was extended from time to time and is continuing till date. This Court has been apprised that the criminal case has progressed substantially and a final decision is awaited soon. A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition clearly reveals that the same is a cryptic one. The impetus towards imposition of the severest punishment of termination from service appears to be lacking.
Everything that affects a citizen in his/her civil life inflicts a civil consequence and a personal hearing is required to be granted to ensure fairness. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain her stand. As such, the impugned order and the decision to terminate suffers from blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.
In view thereof, the said order dated 22nd December, 2023 is set aside and the respondents are directed to allow the
petitioner to continue in service on temporary basis till the criminal proceeding is finally disposed of.
In the event, the petitioner is acquitted, the BSNL authorities shall take an appropriate decision towards confirmation of her service, in accordance with law. In the event, the petitioner is convicted, the BSNL authorities would be at liberty to take a decision as regards her continuance in service, in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.
( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. )