A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Basudev Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. deals with the unlawful termination of an employee who had served the government for 26 years. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the termination order was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice principles. The appellant, an Ophthalmic Assistant, was dismissed due to a belated police verification report deeming him unsuitable for employment. The tribunal set aside the termination, but the High Court reinstated it. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, restoring the tribunal’s order. The court held that the delay in verification, lack of disclosure of adverse material, and absence of an opportunity to be heard rendered the termination unlawful. The court also directed all states to complete police verification for government employees within six months to prevent future injustices.

Keywords:

Termination Order, Police Verification Report, Natural Justice, Service Benefits, Indian Citizenship, Public Employment.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:

Basudev Dutta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

ii) Case Number:

Civil Appeal No. 13919 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:

05 December 2024

iv) Court:

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:

Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice R. Mahadevan

vi) Author:

Justice R. Mahadevan

vii) Citation:

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 418 : 2024 INSC 940

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Citizenship Act, 1955 (Sections 4 and 5)
• Foreigners Act, 1946 (Section 9)
• Evidence Act, 1872
• Constitution of India (Articles 14, 21)
• Government of India Act, 1935

ix) Judgments Overruled (if any):

High Court decision in WPST No. 106 of 2013

x) Case Related to Law Subjects:

Service Law, Constitutional Law, Citizenship Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case revolves around the legality of terminating a government employee based on a police verification report received 25 years after appointment. The appellant, who migrated from East Pakistan in 1969, was employed as an Ophthalmic Assistant in 1985. The termination order, issued two months before his retirement, was challenged before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor. However, the Calcutta High Court overturned this decision, restoring the termination. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the termination, based on an unexplained and delayed police verification report, was legally sustainable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Employment and Background:

   • Basudev Dutta, originally from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), migrated to India in 1969 with his father, who had a Migration Certificate.
   • He completed his education in Calcutta, including an Ophthalmic Assistant Course in 1984.
   • He was appointed as an Ophthalmic Assistant in 1985 by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal.
   • He received yearly increments and other service benefits during his tenure.

2. Police Verification and Termination:

   • The police verification was pending since 1985, despite a satisfactory initial verification at the time of joining.
   • A secret verification report was issued in 2010, declaring him unsuitable for employment based on unknown reasons.
   • Based on this 25-year delayed verification report, the Director of Health Services terminated him on 11.02.2011.
   • No personal hearing or access to the adverse report was granted.

3. Litigation History:

   • Tribunal Decision (2012): Held the termination illegal and reinstated him.
   • Calcutta High Court (2023): Overturned the Tribunal’s order, justifying termination based on police verification.
   • Supreme Court (2024): Reversed the High Court’s decision, restoring the Tribunal’s ruling.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Was the termination order arbitrary and in violation of natural justice?

ii) Could a delayed police verification report be a valid ground for termination?

iii) Did the appellant possess Indian citizenship based on the Migration Certificate?

iv) Was the denial of pensionary benefits lawful?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Violation of Natural Justice

• The police verification report was not served to the appellant, denying him a chance to contest it.
• No opportunity of personal hearing was granted before termination.

ii) Invalidity of Delayed Police Verification Report

• As per government rules, police verification must be completed within three months of appointment.
• The report was submitted after 25 years, just before his retirement, rendering it unjust and arbitrary.

iii) Citizenship and Eligibility for Employment

• The appellant’s father had a Migration Certificate from 1969, proving Indian nationality.
• The Citizenship Act, 1955 (Sections 4 and 5) entitled him to citizenship by descent and registration.

iv) Denial of Pension Violates Constitutional Rights

• The denial of pension for an employee who served for 26 years violated Articles 14 and 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) Citizenship Not Proved

• Migration Certificate is not conclusive proof of citizenship.
• The appellant failed to register his citizenship with the competent authority.

ii) Validity of Termination Order

• The appointment was conditional upon police verification.
• The police report found him ‘unsuitable’, justifying termination.

iii) No Absolute Right to Government Job

• Government employees hold their posts at the discretion of the state.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Termination based on an unexplained police report after 25 years is illegal.
• Denial of natural justice invalidates administrative orders.
• Migration Certificate establishes prima facie citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Police verification for government jobs must be completed within six months.
• Delayed verification should not be used to deny pensionary benefits.

c. Guidelines

1. Police verification must be completed within six months of employment.
2. Employment cannot be terminated based on a delayed verification report.
3. Adverse reports must be disclosed to employees.
4. Natural justice requires a hearing before termination.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling reaffirming the principles of natural justice and due process in employment matters. This judgment sets a crucial precedent against arbitrary termination of employees based on delayed and undisclosed police verification reports. It also protects the rights of migrants by recognizing migration certificates as valid proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Nirma Industries Ltd. v. SEBI (2013) 8 SCC 20
2. State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (2021) 19 SCC 706
3. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 174
4. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer (1995) 3 SCC 100
5. Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Citizenship Act, 1955
2. Foreigners Act, 1946
3. Constitution of India (Articles 14, 21)