(Ml 64) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 July, 2017

1

Court No. 32 W. P. No. 13087(W) of 2017
11.07.2017 Uday Chowdhury
(ML 64) Vs.
The State of West Bengal Ors.
(S. Banerjee)

Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. Advocate
Mr. Sasthi Charan Dhara, Ld. Advocate
… for the petitioner
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Ld. Advocate
Mr. Mirza Kamruddin, Ld. Advocate
… for the State respondents

Let the affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept
with the record.

Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner as well
as the State respondents.

The petitioner was enrolled as a Civic Volunteer and
he joined his post on October 11, 2013 under Indus Police
Station in the district of Bankura. A police case was
started against him under Sections 498A/323/325 of the
Indian Penal Code. He alleges that with effect from October
23, 2016 he was not allowed to join his duties without
showing any show-cause notice. By this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents
to allow him to join the post of Civic Volunteer force under
the said police station.

The Civic Volunteers do not enjoy any permanent
status in any service. The posts have been created to assist
the concerned Officers-in-charge. The concerned memo
2

governing the employment and termination of such Civic
Volunteers specifically mentions that such a volunteer will
be ineligible for continuing in the service if he inter alia is
involved in any criminal case.

Admittedly the petitioner is an accused in a criminal
case and it appears from the records produced by the
learned advocate for the state that he was terminated from
service by an order dated January 11, 2017.

READ  M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2006

The point taken by the petitioner that no notice had
been served upon him before his service was terminated
does not really hold good. Even if it is true that no notice
had been served upon the petitioner I do not find any
reason to interfere. If the grounds of termination from the
employment of a Civic Volunteer includes involvement in
any criminal case and if that fact is not disputed by the
petitioner, non-service of notice will not render the
termination bad. It is true that the principles of natural
justice must be read impliedly in all steps taken by the
respondents but it cannot be stretched beyond a certain
limit. Natural justice is an obedient servant but a
dangerous master. When the facts are admitted,
compliance with the principles of natural justice will be an
empty formality. It is a settled principle of law that
adherence to the principles of natural justice should not be
insisted upon if it is not likely to lead any conclusion other
than the one reached by the authority. The petitioner
submitted that the case lodged by the de facto complainant
is a false one and he has been granted anticipatory bail by
the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura. That, however, does
3

not tilt the case in his favour so far as the order of
termination is concerned. It may be noted that the ground
of termination is involvement in a criminal case and not
the conviction of an accused after a regular trial. Once a
Civic Volunteer is involved in a criminal case it is within
the competence of the authority to terminate his
employment. This is a case where either issuance of notice
or giving a personal hearing would not have led to any
result other than the one which the respondents had
reached.

READ  State Of U.P vs Hari Mohan & Ors on 7 November, 2000

I find no merit in the writ petition and no reason
equally to interfere.

The writ petition is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

However, since the petitioner alleges that no
termination order had been served upon him the
respondents are directed to serve an order of termination
upon the petitioner within two weeks from the date of
communication of the order.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *