AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subrata Talukdar, J
The matter is part heard before this Court and ordinarily, but for the peculiar combination of facts raised in this writ petition, this writ petition did not deserve to be detained before this Court for the period that it has been appearing at intervals since the 27th of September, 2018.
Today, arguments could have been concluded but, again for a singular fact brought to the notice of this Court.
The fact relates to an Investigation Report filed by the Executive Officer (EO), Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad (PMZP)/the Respondent No.4 to this petition which, inter alia, refers to four Attendance Registers maintained by the Office of the District Rural Development Cell, Purba Medinipur. The fourth Attendance Register relates to daily wage workers (engaged on no work no pay basis), i.e. the category to which the present petitioner belongs.
The EO, PMZP/the Respondent No.4 who, this Court is informed, is also the District Magistrate (DM), Purba Medinipur/the Respondent No.2 to this petition has, in the following paragraphs at page 1 of his Report opined as follows:
"In the 4th category of the Attendance Register i.e the Attendance Register for Daily Wage Workers on 'No Work No Pay basis' there appear, three names viz. Sri Meghdut Maity, Sri Somsubhra Modak and the petitioner Ansarul Alam.
The said attendance register also remains certified with page number at the very opening page by the then Project Director, DRD Cell.
The two workers viz. Sri Meghdut Maity, Sri Somsubhra Modak recorded there attendance by signing in the respective column in a regular manner which are duly verified by the officer concerned almost regularly.
The said attendance register also bears the name of the petitioner Ansarul Alam but he did not record his attendance by putting signature in the respective column in any date there. And the examination of the other employees of the office also makes it clear that it is the only attendance register for Daily Wage Workers (No Work No Pay basis) and there was no other such attendance register for them."
The contradiction, to the mind of this Court, apparently begins from the second page of the Report at page 215 of the Paper Book.
In the second part the EO, PMZP has, prior to concluding his Report, opined as follows:
"The petitioner, on the opportunity given to him to substantiate his position, appeared in person and produced some photo copies of attendance register bearing his name with his signatures only to claim his record of attendance. The document which he produced in photo state form is not founded authenticated by authority nor is found to be a copy of any authenticated document by the officer concerned. And failed to produce the Original Register from which the photo copy was made.
In this context, his only statement is that the original copy lies at the office of the DRDC, Purba Medinipur.
But a further investigation was made at the office of the DRD Cell, Purba Medinipur into the matter and also after talking with the officials of the DRD Cell, Purba Medinipur, there comes out no existence of such records of attendance register at the Office.
There is found nothing to accept that the Office of the Project Director, DRDC ever maintained person-centric Attendance Register or one attendance register specifically for the petitioner, Ansarul Alam or he was ever singled out to record his attendance by allowing separate Attendance Register for himself only.
Going through all records in respect of attendance register as maintained in the office of the DRDC, Purba Medinipur, it appears that there are maintained only above noted four types of attendance registers with 4th type specifically for the 'No Work No Pay basis' workers where the names of the three workers including that of the Petitioner, Ansarul Alam also appears.
There is also not found any authenticity and genuineness of the photo state copies, as claimed to have been made out of any on-record official documents which is an earmarked Attendance Register for the petitioner Ansarul Alam"
At the hearing today, Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4/PMZP produces three Attendance Registers of the fourth category pertaining to daily wage workers on no work no pay basis. The first and second of the three Attendance Registers read chronologically backward cover the period 1st August, 2016 to the 2nd of May, 2017. The petitioner is shown to be absent on and from throughout and have been duly authenticated by the Officer of the DRD Cell, PMZP.
The contradiction begins with the third Attendance Register which apparently is the first in time covering the period 25th June, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and purportedly thereafter. In this Attendance Register it is seen that the petitioner has alone signed and upto a period there appears to be the signature of the authenticated officer. There also appears to be a verification of the working days of the petitioner by the Supervising Officer.
The production of this Attendance Register by Learned Counsel for PMZP today at the hearing contradicts the second part of the Report of the EO (supra), which concludes that there are no records ever of a person-centric Attendance Register maintained specifically for the petitioner.
Without commenting further this Court only observes that the EO, PMZP entrusted the enquiry to a Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Purba Medinipur, one Sri Banibroto Mukhopadhyay. The EO shall be entitled to seek an appropriate explanation connected to the existence of the third Attendance Register from the said Sri Mukhopadhyay.
This Court, with the above observations, remands the matter to the EO, PMZP/Respondent No.4 to examine the third Attendance Register (supra) as produced before this Court which appears to contradict the stand of the EO that there was no person-centric Attendance Register qua the petitioner and, in the event there was one, the same was not official.
The three Attendance Registers in original are handed over to Ms. Samanta, Learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents for custody and production before the Respondent No.2.
The EO/PMZP, shall apply his mind to the existence of the three Attendance Registers now brought to the notice of this Court upon actual production thereof and make such further investigation on enquiry as deemed fit.
Ms. Samanta shall be entitled to communicate this order to the Respondent No.2/4 as also the writ petitioner.
The Report of the Respondent No.2/4 be placed through Learned State Advocate, Ms. Samanta on the next date.
Let the matter next appear under the same heading "Part-Heard Matters" by date on the 19th of November, 2019.
Registry to communicate this order to the Respondent No.2 and file its Report by the next date.