GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Manojit Bhuyan, J.
Geetali Doley & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 4198 of 2019 and WP(C) 2684 of 2019 and WP(C) 1618/2018 and WP(C) 3066 of 2019 and WP(C) 5817/2017 and WP(C) 4905 of 2019 and WP(C) 954 of 2019 and WP(C) 2783 of 2019 and WP(C) 7891/2018 and WP(C) 2374 of 2019 and WP(C) 7122 of 2019 and WP(C) 1727 of 2019 and WP(C) 1762 of 2019 and WP(C) 1766 of 2019 and WP(C) 1759 of 2019 and WP(C) 1371 of 2019 and WP(C) 131 of 2019 and WP(C) 1346 of 2019 and WP(C) 2621/2018 and WP(C) 2228 of 2019 and WP(C) 3123 of 2019 and WP(C) 2454 of 2019 and WP(C) 206 of 2019 and WP(C) 2131 of 2019 and WP(C) 8539/2018 and WP(C) 2376 of 2019 and WP(C) 5809/2018 and WP(C) 998 of 2019 and WP(C) 608 of 2019 and WP(C) 3121 of 2019 and WP(C) 7768/2018 and WP(C) 2513 of 2019 and WP(C) 1008 of 2019 and WP(C) 1749 of 2019 and WP(C) 1442 of 2019 and WP(C) 8523/2018 and WP(C) 8117/2018 and WP(C) 863 of 2019 and WP(C) 2458 of 2019 and WP(C) 2244 of 2019 and WP(C) 7098/2018 and WP(C) 1730 of 2019 and WP(C) 779 of 2019 and WP(C) 2163 of 2019 and WP(C) 8554/2018 and WP(C) 1721 of 2019 and WP(C) 156/2018 and WP(C) 2625/2018 and WP(C) 820 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2020
Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998 – Rules 13, 20 – Probation – Discharge from service – 52 (fifty-two) writ petitioners in the present 49 (forty-nine) writ petitions cries foul with their discharge from service during the period of probation and pleads in one voice that the Court should lift the veil to reach and ascertain the intention and reason behind the issuance of the impugned orders. – Petitioners submit that their discharge from service is based on alleged misconduct and it is the report of the investigation carried out by the Dibrugarh Police Station that propelled and became the foundation of the impugned action. – Held, Law does not permit automatic confirmation in service due to efflux of time unless the Service Rules governing the servant specifically lays down that condition. – There cannot be any question of deemed confirmation merely on the ground of continuance of service beyond the initial 2 (two) year probationary period. – Case laws cited by Mr. Singh on behalf of the State respondents on the legal principles above commends for acceptance by this Court. Reference is made to paragraph 11 in Chandra Prakash Shahi wherein a legal proposition was reiterated that permanent status can be acquired only by a specific order confirming the employee on the post held by him on probation. – This Court also finds great force in the submissions of Mr. Singh justifying the bona fide action of the State in discharging/removing the petitioners from service. –writ petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference to their impugned orders of discharge from service. – Writ Petitions Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. The 52 (fifty-two) writ petitioners in the present 49 (forty-nine) writ petitions cries foul with their discharge from service during the period of probation and pleads in one voice that the Court should lift the veil to reach and ascertain the intention and reason behind the issuance of the impugned orders. The petitioners submit that their discharge from service is based on alleged misconduct and it is the report of the investigation carried out by the Dibrugarh Police Station that propelled and became the foundation of the impugned action.
2. The imputations against each of the writ petitioners finds recorded in the respective supplementary charge-sheets, which came about following investigations in Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016, on the basis of an FIR dated 27.10.2016 lodged by one Dr. Angshumita Gogoi of Namrup, district Dibrugarh, alleging to the effect that one Naba Kanta Patir contacted and told her to pay Rs.10 lakhs in consideration of her recruitment to a post of Dental Surgeon in the exercise carried out by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). Said Sri Patir demanded that the amount of Rs.10 lakhs be brought to his residence at Dibrugarh on 27.10.2016. She had informed the matter to the Dibrugarh Police and on the said date i.e. 27.10.2016 Sri Patir was apprehended from his residential premise located at the Circuit House Road while in the process of receiving the amount from the complainant. Following further investigations, each of the petitioners were arrested and implicated as accused with imputations being more or less the same. Investigations revealed that one accused Sri Rakesh Kumar Paul (A-3), who was the Chairman of APSC, along with his brother Sri Rajib Paul (A-9), who is a businessman and the owner of the printing house Subhadeep Printers and one Sri Sudip Das (A-10), another businessman, colluded with each other and used to print duplicate and fake APSC answer scripts, which were given to the writ petitioners for re-writing the answers again after the examination. The re-written answer scripts were thereafter replaced with the original answer scripts in connivance with one Sri Pabitra Kaibarta (A-5), the then Assistant Controller of Examinations, APSC, for the purpose of getting the writ petitioners selected in the Combined Competitive Examination of 2013 and 2014 respectively, conducted by the APSC. The duplicate and fake answer scripts of the writ petitioners were recovered and seized from the Confidential Examination Branch of APSC. The forensic examination of the seized answer scripts revealed that the same were not printed in the Government Press and the handwriting of marks is of Rakesh Kumar Paul (A-3). In the said answer scripts, either there was no signature of the Invigilator or in case of any signature appearing, the same were found to be fake and mis-matched with the signature of the concerned Invigilator.
3. The entry of the writ petitioners into service may now be noticed. One set of petitioners are from the 2015 batch of candidates, who had cleared the Combined Competitive Examination-2013 under the aegis of the Assam Public Service Commission, pursuant to Advertisement dated 11.08.2013. As many as 42,553 candidates had appeared in the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, out of which 2287 nos. of candidates appeared in the Main Examination on being so qualified. Candidates qualifying and called for interview stood at 497 nos. and finally 241 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment to various services under the Government of Assam, having regard to options expressed by the candidates. Another set of petitioners are from the 2016 batch of candidates who had qualified in the Combined Competitive Examination-2014 pursuant to Advertisement dated 03.04.2014. As many as 24,722 candidates appeared in the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination and from amongst those qualifying, a total of 1550 nos. of candidates appeared in the Main Examin
A.K. Kraipak and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India and anr.
Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. vs. Company Law Board and Ors.
Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Dayal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal
Debendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors.
G.S. Ramaswamy vs. the Inspector General of Police, Mysore State, Bangalore
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India
Jaspal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors
Joginder Pal and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Management of M/s Pan American World Airways Inc. and Ors.
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab
Kesar Enterprises Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Khudiram Das vs. State of West Bengal
Krishan Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Girja Shankar Pant and Others
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Manoj Narula vs. Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill and ors. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & ors.
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Pavanendra Narayan Verma (supra) and H.L. Trehan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
Prasanta Kalita vs. Gauhati High Court and anr.
Pratap Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh
Ratnesh Kumar Choudhury vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Ors.
Registrar, High Court of Gujarat vs. C.G. Sharma
Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and Anr.
Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr.
Satya Narayan Athya vs. High Court of M.P.
State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Palak Modi and anr.
State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag and anr.
State Bank of India vs. Palak Modi and anr.
State of Bombay vs. Purushottam Jog Naik
State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Prabhu
State of Maharastra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi
State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei
Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana vs. Dwarka Das
Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.
The State of Bihar vs. Shiva Bhishuk Mishra
Union of India and anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel
Union of India and Ors. vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi
Union of India vs. O. Chakradhar
Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel
V.P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and Ors
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.