Niranjan Toppo vs Union Of India And Ors

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order no. A9602/ Rectt/ CT(GD)/ BSF/ TC&S/ 2017/10672-79 contained in

Annexure-3 dated 02.08.2017 by which the order of appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing.

Factual matrix of this case is that an advertisement was floated for appointment to the post of constable in CAPFS/NIA/SSF and Rifleman in

Assam Rifles Examination in the year 2015. The petitioner having requisite qualifications applied for the same and appeared and got selected. It is the

case of the petitioner that he also appeared before the Board for Physical Efficiency Test and he qualified in all the tests. Accordingly, the department

issued the order of appointment vide order bearing no. A.9602/REctt/Ct(GD)/BSF/TC&S/2017/7061-64 dated 20.05.2017. Subsequently, he was

posted as constable in West Bengal. During the course of his posting. In compliance of the said letter of the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 4

issued the order contained in A9602/ Rectt/CT(GD)/ BSF/TC&S/2017/10672-79 dated 02.08.2017 and the order of appointment of the petitioner dated

20.05.2017 issued by the competent authority, was withdrawn. It is the specific case of the petitioner that without affording any opportunity of hearing

the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn and even no copy of such complaint was ever served to the petitioner. Aggrieved with the

withdrawal of the appointment, the petitioner knocked the door of the Court.

Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that without initiating any departmental proceeding, without serving a notice

or a copy of the complaint and without affording any opportunity of hearing the withdrawal of the appointment of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and

not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the impugned order passed in complete violation of natural justice

and hence, it is fit to be set aside.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned ASGI assisted by Ms. Shreesha Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India, vehemently opposes the said contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Respondent no. 5 requested Respondent no. 4 for

immediately withdrawing the appointment of petitioner, who has been declared successful and finally selected for the post of constable, as on

allegation of procuring impersonation in written part of examination is under investigation. Admittedly, the petitioner has been found guilty for

impersonation and as such allegation of procuring impersonation in the written examination has also found to be true and vide letter no. A9602/

Rectt/CT(GD)/ BSF/TC&S/ 2017/10672-79 dated 2nd August, 2017 the petitioner was dismissed from the service only within a period of three months

i.e. during probation period as the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 20.05.2017. Even the service of the petitioner was not confirmed. Further,

even it has come to the notice of respondent that the petitioner was involved in impersonating in the written examination the matter was also inquired

internally and even the FSL report shows that the petitioner was guilty of impersonation and as such his appointment has rightly been withdrawn.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for

interference in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons:

i. The allegation of procuring impersonation has been found to be proved by the department as well as by the Staff Selection Commission.

ii. On written complaint, the matter was inquired even the forensic report was sought which goes against the petitioner as in the forensic report also

the handwriting was found different and even the thumb impression is not of the petitioner.

iii. An information was also sought for and it was opined that the “The standard writings and signatures show differences with questioned writings

and signature in class characteristics of movement, skill, speed, line quality, overall-slant, spacing, alignment, size and proportion of characters.†The

scientific information clearly shows that the guilt of the petitioner has been clearly proved.

The constables of BSF are appointed to guard the border of the country and if he is found guilty of impersonation then no right accrues for affording

opportunity of hearing. The principle of natural justice is not attracted. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not

accepted to this Court, the petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity of hearing as he was appointed only three months back to guard the border

of the country. The department has rightly taken steps to get rid of such person as early as possible hence, there is no illegality and infirmity in the

impugned order. The Court is in full agreement with the decision taken by the department.

The writ petition fails and hence, dismissed.