9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at weighed with the learned Single Judge in directing their termination in a case where they were not even the parties appears to be materials that was revealed in response to orders of the Court. Such orders reflect some kind of investigative role that was being undertaken by the Court itself in obtaining documents from the recruiting bodies. It was also not a case the respective appointments were of very recent origin. Thus, the present incumbent to the post of President, West Bengal Board of Primary Education shall continue to remain in the said post till final outcome of the writ petition before the Single Judge in which the directions of the said Petitioner's removal was passed. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya shall be entitled to file affidavits to the writ petitions as also any additional affidavit taken out in connection with the said writ petitions which may contain allegations against him. The CBI under the SIT shall continue their investigation as directed by the Single Judge and file a comprehensive report before this Court within a period of four weeks as regards progress of the investigation - The order passed directing cancellation of 269 candidates by the Single Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge passed on 27th September, 2022 (in WPA No. 2005 of 2022 and WPA No. 15010 of 2022) by which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was directed to register a case and take certain steps in relation to OMR sheets of the candidates who took part in the said examination. 2. The Division Bench considered in the impugned judgment/orders passed in two writ petitions brought by unsuccessful candidates. In the first writ petition (registered as WP No. 7907 of 2019) applicants were Ramesh Malik and eight other aspirants for the said posts and this writ petition was filed in the year 2019. The Petitioners in this proceeding sought cancellation of appointment of the private Respondent impleaded therein, inter-alia, on the ground that appointments were made through corrupt process and not on the basis of merit and performance of the successful candidates. In the other writ petition filed by one Soumen Nandy, registered as WPA No. 9979 of 2022, complaint was non-disclosure of certain informations with regard to the 68 candidates pertaining to their answer scripts. These were in OMR sheets. From the prayers of the Petitioner in the said writ application, a copy of which has been anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion actually had two correct answers. Thus, that question had two correct answers but the model answer had ignored the other one. One mark was recommended to be added to all the candidates who had opted for the other correct answer. The Single Judge found this exercise was done without any public announcement and there was arbitrary selection of candidates for undue favour. (iii) Removal of the Board President The President of the Board, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya was added as party Respondent in WPA No. 7907 of 2019. He, alongwith Dr. Ratna Chakraborty Bagchi (who was also added as a party Respondent) was directed to cooperate with the CBI. The Single Judge in the order passed on 20th June 2022 opined that the President of the Board was responsible for misleading the Court and made dishonest and unscrupulous attempt in producing documents. In the same order, the Court removed Dr. Manik Bhattacharya from the post of President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education forthwith and directed the State Government to appoint any other fit person as President of the Board. We are apprised in course of hearing that the State Government has already removed Dr. Manik Bhattacharya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. It is argued that he ought to have been given opportunity of filing affidavit before such drastic action was ordered against him. It has also been asserted that drastic orders were being passed directing the course of investigation and the nature of the orders passed projected him as guilty before he had the opportunity to give his side of the case. 7. All the Petitioners have questioned legality of the orders directing investigation to the CBI by the Single Judge. In this regard reliance has been placed on the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sampat Lal and Ors (1985) 1 SCC 317]: 15. As already pointed out, power vests in the police authorities of the State Government for conducting investigation into allegations relating to an offence. However, the stand taken by the Respondents was that the State Government and the police authorities had not acted properly and the investigation was not being conducted as required by law. As appears from the order of June 7, 1983, Borooah, J., directed notice to issue to the State of West Bengal as also to the other authorities concerned to show cause against the issue of a writ. No hearing was, however, afforded to the State Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto the commission of an offence can only be on the basis that there has not been a proper investigation. There is a well-defined hierarchical administrative set-up of the police in the State of West Bengal as in all other States and to have created a new channel of inquiry or investigation is likely to create an impression that everything is not well with the statutory agency and it is likely to cast a stigma on the regular police hierarchy. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Chatterjee for the Appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping the nature of the order made in view, the direction to appoint a Special Officer with powers to inquire should not have been made until the Appellants had been given a hearing and the Court had the papers of investigation laid before it for being prima facie satisfied that the investigation had either not been proper or adequate. On the same point the cases of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571], Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409] and Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. v. State of Sikkim and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 513] we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra). But considering the submission of learned Counsel for the CBI and the fact that investigation by the said agency has substantially progressed, we do not want to stall such investigation at this stage and wait to see if the State Police can carry on the same investigation impartially. We accordingly decline the plea of the Petitioners to stay that part of the order impugned, by which continuance of the investigation by the CBI has been directed. Before we issue further order in this matter, we direct the CBI to file a comprehensive report as regards the scope and nature of illegalities they have found in the subject-recruitment process. 12. Now, we shall turn to that part of the order by which cancellation of appointment of 269 candidates have been effected. Such cancellation has not been interfered with by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has referred to prima-facie materials which point to a fraudulent exercise connected with their appointments. On behalf of the Respondents, however, no material has been shown to us through which these candidates' direct complicity in the process of appointment has been shown. What weighed with the learned Single Judge in direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminal petition and the whole of the allegations in the anonymous petition are levelled against the Appellant and in such a situation it was imperative for the High Court to put the Appellant on notice before passing the impugned order. (emphasis supplied by us) 14. We are of the opinion that the part of the order of the Single Judge by which appointment of 269 candidates was terminated ought to be stayed and they also should be impleaded as party Respondents in WPA No. 7907 of 2019. Upon giving them opportunity of filing affidavits and hearing them, the Single Judge shall take appropriate decision, depending on the defence that may be taken by those candidates in the writ petition. In the event the Single Judge wants the investigation as regards their appointment to be conducted through the SIT already formed, he may direct so. 15. As regards the case of President of the Board, our view is that the order of his removal by the High Court was flawed, not fulfilling the requirement of procedural fairness that is necessary to direct removal of a person from a public post. We are not observing here that the High Court cannot at all direct removal of any person from a public p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they shall be entitled to file affidavits to defend their appointment to the said posts, if so advised. The appointing authority will proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate decision after the writ court adjudicates on legality of their appointments. This direction would be subject to any order that may be passed by this Court at a subsequent stage of this proceeding. (c) (i). The order removing Dr. Manik Bhattacharya passed by the Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench shall remain stayed until further order of this Court. We, however, are not directing his reinstatement for the reason already disclosed in earlier part of this order. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya shall be entitled to defend his position in the writ petition by filing affidavits in respect of allegations made against him. (ii). We have protected Dr. Manik Bhattacharya from any coercive steps that may have been taken by the CBI in course of the investigation. There was no allegation from the CBI in course of hearing of these matters that he was not cooperating with the investigation. It was, however, mentioned before us on 12th October 2022 that he has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
