Ravi Ranjan Pandey vs The State of Bihar and Others

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Special Leave is granted. The appellant applied for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance of an advertisement in this regard in 1982. He appeared at the written test conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). On 15.3.1983, he received a letter, issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Commission, stating that he had been found using unfair means. After giving him a show cause notice and considering his explanation, he was debarred from appearing at any examination conducted by the Commission for a period of four years with effect from 16.2.1982. It transpires from the record that in the examination held in 1984, the appellant appeared and passed the written test and qualified in the physical test as well. He was recommended for appointment along with one Mitbilesh Kumar and ultimately on selection was appointed vide appointment letter dated 10th August, 1985. Both were put on probation and sent for training. It was during the period of training, while the appellant was on probation, that on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (T) Special Branch, Bihar that his appointment was cancelled and on 20th of March 1986, the Director General of Police issued an order, terminating the services of the appellant from the post of Sub-Inspector with effect from that date on the ground that while verifying his past antecedents, the same were not found satisfactory. The record reveals that the basis for holding that the antecedents of the appellant were not found satisfactory was that he had earlier, in an examination conducted by the Commission, been found to use unfair means and had been debarred from appearing at any examination to be conducted by the Commission for a period of four years. Shri Mithilesh Kumar also met similar fate. Both challenged the termination orders through writ-applications before the High Court. The writ-application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed in limine. The writ-petition filed by Mithilesh Kumar, however, appears to have been allowed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on 22.10.1989.

It has, inter alia, been contended on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant was debarred from appearing at only such examinations which were to be held by the Bihar Public Service Commission as per the rules in this regard (Annexure 1) and since on the second occasion he was not appearing at any examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission the rule was inapplicable to his case and he had not misled the authorities. On merits, it has been submitted that he had not been given any opportunity to place his case and the order of termination was issued violating the principles of Natural Justice.

Mr. Ghosh, the Learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that he had been issued adverse order casting serious stigma on his character without giving any chance to place his case and explain the position. It was further argued that in similar circumstances the other candidate Mithilesh Kumar had succeeded before the Bench and no distinction could be made between the two cases.

Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, the Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar has, in reply, said that in view of the rule at page 71 of the paper book the impugned order should be maintained on the ground that during the period of probation it was discovered by the authorities that the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in service. It was indicated in the appointment letter itself that it would be subject to verification of character and once it had been discovered that he was found to be using unfair means at an earlier examination, he was not entitled to claim to be retained in service. We have examined the matter at length and we find that the stand taken on behalf of the appellant is well founded. The rule on the basis of which the appellant's appointment has been cancelled as contained in Annexure I at page 47-48 refers to an examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and the order of debar was not a general order applicable to examinations not conducted by the Commission. Admittedly, the examination at which the appellant was allowed to appear on the next occasion was not conducted by the Commission and he, therefore, can rightly claim that he did not suppress any material or mislead any authority in making an application for permission to sit at the examination for his fresh appointment. Having regard to the circumstance that the appellant has been condemned without being given any opportunity to defend himself at any stage before the impugned order of termination was passed casting serious stigmas against his character, we are of the opinion that the writ-application of the appellant should have been allowed by the High Court. That apart, no attempt has been made before us for distinguishing the case of Mithilesh Kumar who had succeeded before the High Court. The order terminating the services of the appellant is vitiated having been passed ignoring the rules of natural justice and violating the principle of fair play in action. For these reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned termination order is set aside. The authority concerned should now promptly reinstate the appellant in service w.e.f. 1.2.1993. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, however, we direct that although the appellant shall be entitled to continuity of service for all purpose, he shall not be paid any back salary or other emoluments for the period when he had remained out of service. He will be paid hit salary now only w.e.f. 1.2.1993. The appellant may appear before the authorities by 1.2.1993 with a copy of this judgment which may be issued to him without delay on payment of usual cost so that the authorities can take appropriate action to reinstate him.