In the absence of confirmation of service and pendency of departmental process to verify caste certificate, protection against ouster as per Kavita Solunke and Shalini judgments is not applicable.

JUDGMENT :

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) :

1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus against the respondents being the Union of India and its officials for quashing the office order vide no. E-III/PF-KM/SSB/63rd BN/18/7329-41 dated 11.08.2018 whereby and whereunder the present petitioner was removed from his service by respondent no.6/authority as well as for quashing office order vide No. II/Estt./Dist/53rd BN/Ftr-Slg/2018/945-47 dated 16.01.2019 as issued by the Appellate Authority being respondent no.5 whereby the said Appellate Authority upheld the removal order of the writ petitioner from service thereby dismissing the said appeal preferred by the writ petitioner.

2. In support of the instant writ petition learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.31 and 32 of the writ petition being Annexure P1 which is the photocopy of certificate for OBC as issued in the name of the writ petitioner by SDO Sadar, Berhampore as per proforma prescribed by the respondents/authorities prior to his appointment in ‘Sashastra Seema Bal’ (in short ‘SSB’) by virtue of their recruitment application vide F no. 3/18/2011-P&P1 as published in the Employment News/ Rozgar Samachar dated 03.12.2011. It is further submitted that the present writ petitioner after crossing all the hurdles in the said recruitment process ultimately was offered with an appointment by a memorandum dated 27.05.2014 which was also being annexed in the instant writ petition at page no.33, being Annexure P2. It is contended further that all of a sudden the present writ petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 28.03.2018 by his employer/ superior i.e. respondent no.6 herein on the ground that the writ petitioner has furnished false or incorrect information of belonging to OBC category under Central List at the time of his appointment and thus failed to fulfill the requisite criteria required for selection to the post of Constable (GD) where the writ petitioner has joined as a probationer. It is further argued that pursuant to the direction of his superior the writ petitioner had duly replied to such show-cause notice however, the respondent no.6/authority was not satisfied with the reply as given by the present writ petitioner and thereafter by the impugned letter dated 11.08.2018 issued an order for removal from service of the writ petitioner.

3. The writ petitioner thereafter carried the matter to the Appellate Forum but the Appellate Authority also failed to consider such appeal in its proper perspective and thus wrongly affirmed the order of dismissal as passed by respondent no.6.

4. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that from Annexure P1 i.e.; the photocopy of the certificate for OBC as issued in the name of the petitioner it would reveal that such certificate has been issued by the appropriate authority as per proforma prescribed by the respondent/Union of India in their recruitment notice and in absence of proof of any fraud on the part of the writ petitioner, the respondents/authorities more specifically, respondent no.5 is not justified in removing the writ petitioner from service that too after more than 4 years of his joining on the pretext that the writ petitioner does not belong to OBC (A) category as per Central List for the State of West Bengal.

5. Drawing attention to Rule 15 of SSB Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Rules’) it is contended that the said Rule provides that normally a person who has been appointed in SSB shall remain on probation for a period of two years; however in an appropriate case the Central Government may extend the period of probation for such further period or periods not exceeding two years or may during the period of probation terminate his service without assigning any reasons. It is thus contended that since the date of entry in service of the writ petitioner was 27.05.2014 it may be presumed,