IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Indian Citizenship – Once application has been submitted, authority concerned has to take appropriate decision within a reasonable time by taking into consideration all applicable laws and documents produced by applicant.
(2) Natural Justice – Reasons are heartbeat of every order and every notice must specify grounds on which administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed.
(3) Termination – Before taking any adverse decision, aggrieved person must be given opportunity of personal hearing.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Mahadevan, J.)

Leave granted.

2. Assailing the final judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta¹[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”] in W.P.S.T. No. 106 of 2013, the appellant has come up with this appeal. Vide the said order, the High Court set aside the order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal at Calcutta²[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the Tribunal”] in O.A.No.331 of 2011³[Basudev Dutta v. The State of West Bengal and Others], in which, the order of termination passed against the appellant herein was set aside, however, the authority concerned was granted liberty to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law, following the principles of natural justice.

3. According to the appellant, when he was aged about 16 years, he along with his father by name Hariananda Dutta, came to India from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and his father was issued with a Migration Certificate being No.D/65/69 dated 19.05.1969 by the authority concerned. Subsequently, the appellant joined Bangabasi College, Calcutta and passed the Pre-University Examination in Science in May, 1971 under the University of Calcutta. Thereafter, he got admission in Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Calcutta and successfully completed Ophthalmic Assistant Course in 1984. Later, he participated in the selection process and was appointed as Para Medical Ophthalmic Assistant by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, vide order dated 21.02.1985 and in terms of the said appointment order, the appellant joined at Kadambini Block Primary Health Centre, Monteswar, Burdwan on 06.03.1985. The Department received satisfactory report of the medical examination and Police Verification Roll from the concerned authorities. He continued in service and was granted yearly increment and other consequential service benefits. While so, based on the secret verification report dated 25.05.2010 of the Government of West Bengal, which was communicated by the police to the department on 07.07.2010, the appellant was served with a memo dated 23.08.2010, stating that he is ‘unsuitable’ for employment and directing him to submit his defense, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memo. In response, the appellant sent the details of his candidature on 09.09.2010. However, by order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, the appellant was terminated from service with immediate effect without any enquiry. Challenging the said order of termination, the appellant preferred Original Application No.331 of 2011, which was allowed by the Tribunal, by order dated 28.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed a writ petition being W.P.S.T.No.106 of 2013 and the High Court by the order impugned herein, allowed the same by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and affirming the order of termination passed by the authority concerned. Therefore, the appellant is before us with the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that on the basis of migration certificate issued in favour of the appellant’s father, in which, the appellant’s name also finds place, the appellant is a citizen of India with effect from 19.05.1969; he was issued with ration card, Voter Identity Card and Aadhaar Card by the Government of India and he participated in all local Assembly and Parliamentary elections; and he is also an assessee under the Income Tax Act and is regularly submitting his returns. Adding further, it is contended that upon participating in the selection process, the appellant was appointed as Ophthalmic Assistant, on 21.02.1985 and he joined the service upon submission of the satisfactory report of medical examination and police verification roll. After having rendered 26 years of unblemished service, the appellant was terminated from service, based on the secret verification report of