Supreme Court Upholds Employee Rights in Termination Case: Basudev Dutta vs. State of West Bengal (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 940

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can an employee be terminated from service based on a belated police verification report without being given a chance to defend themselves? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a long-serving employee who was terminated based on a report submitted 25 years after his appointment. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring fair treatment of employees.

The core issue revolves around the termination of Basudev Dutta, an Ophthalmic Assistant, by the State of West Bengal, based on a police verification report that deemed him “unsuitable” for employment. The Supreme Court examined whether this termination was lawful, considering the lack of a proper inquiry and the violation of natural justice principles. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and R. Mahadevan, with the majority opinion authored by Justice R. Mahadevan.

Case Background

Basudev Dutta, along with his father, migrated from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to India in 1969 when he was about 16 years old. His father received a Migration Certificate on May 19, 1969. Basudev pursued his education, completing the Pre-University Examination in Science in 1971 and an Ophthalmic Assistant Course in 1984.

On February 21, 1985, Basudev was appointed as a Para Medical Ophthalmic Assistant by the Government of West Bengal and joined his post on March 6, 1985. He received satisfactory medical and police verification reports. However, on July 7, 2010, the department received a secret verification report dated May 25, 2010, stating he was “unsuitable” for employment. Consequently, he was served a memo on August 23, 2010, asking for his defense. He submitted his response on September 9, 2010. Despite this, he was terminated on February 11, 2011, without any inquiry.

Basudev challenged his termination, which was initially set aside by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. However, the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Basudev Dutta initially challenged his termination before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal sided with Dutta, setting aside his termination order on August 28, 2012. The Tribunal held that the termination was in violation of natural justice principles, but granted liberty to the authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law, following the principles of natural justice.

Aggrieved by this decision, the State of West Bengal filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court reversed the Tribunal’s order on August 16, 2023, and affirmed the termination order passed by the authority. The High Court held that the show cause notice and the opportunity to reply was in adherence with the principles of natural justice. This led to Basudev Dutta appealing to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946: This section places the burden of proof on the individual to prove they are not a foreigner. The section states: “If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person.”
• Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India: These articles deal with citizenship.
• Section 4 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955: This section deals with citizenship by descent.
• Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955: This section deals with citizenship by registration. Specifically, Section 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) are relevant, which pertain to persons of Indian origin who are residents of India or any country outside undivided India.
• Section 2(h) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955: This section defines “Undivided India” as “India, as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935” as originally enacted.
• Amendment Act No. 47 of 2019 to Section 2 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955: This amendment, effective from 10.01.2020, introduced a proviso stating that persons like the appellant are not to be treated as “illegal migrants.”

These provisions establish the legal framework for determining citizenship and the rights of individuals in India. The case also touches upon the principles of natural justice, which are crucial in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he is an Indian citizen by virtue of the migration certificate issued to his father in 1969, which included his name. He also possessed a ration card, Voter ID, and Aadhaar card, and was an income tax assessee.
• He contended that he was appointed after submitting satisfactory medical and police verification reports and had rendered 26 years of unblemished service.
• The termination was based on a secret verification report, which was not provided to him, and he was not given a personal hearing, violating natural justice principles.
• The police verification report was submitted after an inordinate delay of 25 years from the date of his appointment.
• The appellant relied on the fact that his grandfather was a permanent resident of Calcutta and his father was born in Calcutta in 1911.
• The police department has no authority to neutralize the citizenship of a person.
• The right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India was violated due to the State’s failure to continue his service and disburse his pensionary benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the migration certificate does not prove Indian citizenship and that the appellant needed to register his citizenship.
• They stated that Aadhaar Card, voter ID, and PAN card are not conclusive proof of citizenship, citing precedents.
• The appointment was subject to satisfactory police verification, and the appellant was deemed “unsuitable” based on the secret report.
• The respondent argued that the appellant was given a show cause notice and opportunity to reply.
• They cited cases like Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2013) 8 SCC 20, State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706, and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519, to argue that a personal hearing is not always necessary if a fair hearing is given and the person is not prejudiced.
• The delay in submitting the verification report cannot make an illegal act legal.

The arguments highlight the conflict between the State’s need for verification and the employee’s right to fair treatment and due process.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant is an Indian citizen based on the migration certificate issued in favor of his father.
2. Whether the termination order was in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice, non-supply of the police verification report, and denial of a personal hearing.
3. Whether the inordinate delay in submitting the police verification report by the police authority vitiates the termination order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174 – The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden of proving citizenship lies on the person claiming it.
  Ratio: The burden of proof is on the individual to establish their citizenship, as they possess the necessary personal knowledge of their birth, parentage, etc.
• Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100 – The Court referred to this case to highlight that the question of whether a person is a foreigner is a question of fact requiring careful scrutiny of evidence.
  Ratio: Determining whether a person is a foreigner is a quasi-judicial process that requires a thorough examination of evidence.
• Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 – This case was cited to underscore the importance of reasoned orders in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.
  Ratio: Administrative and quasi-judicial orders must contain reasons to ensure that the authority has applied its mind and to enable judicial review.
• Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of U.P., (1979) 4 SCC 537 – The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a personal hearing is required before terminating an employee from service.
  Ratio: Personal hearing is a must before terminating an employee from service.
• S.Govindaraju v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (1986) 3 SCC 273 – This case was cited to support the principle that an opportunity for explanation must be given before terminating an employee.
  Ratio: An opportunity of explanation must be given to an employee before terminating their services.
• Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632 – The Court referred to this case to highlight that principles of natural justice must be read into rules, even if they are silent.
  Ratio: Principles of natural justice must be followed even if the rules are silent.
• Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2013) 8 SCC 20 – Cited by the respondent to argue that personal hearing is not always necessary.
• State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 – Cited by the respondent to argue that personal hearing is not always necessary.
• Dharampal Satyapal Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519 – Cited by the respondent to argue that personal hearing is not always necessary.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 – The Court considered this provision to discuss the burden of proof regarding citizenship.
• Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India – The Court considered these articles which deal with citizenship.
• Section 4 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 – The Court considered this section which deals with citizenship by descent.
• Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 – The Court considered this section which deals with citizenship by registration.
• Section 2(h) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 – The Court considered this section which defines “Undivided India”.
• Amendment Act No. 47 of 2019 to Section 2 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 – The Court considered this amendment which states that persons like the appellant are not to be treated as “illegal migrants.”

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Tribunal’s order. The Court held that the termination of Basudev Dutta was illegal and violated principles of natural justice.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174 to emphasize that the burden of proving citizenship lies on the person claiming it.
• The Court followed Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995) 3 SCC 100 to highlight that the question of whether a person is a foreigner is a question of fact requiring careful scrutiny of evidence.
• The Court followed Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 to underscore the importance of reasoned orders in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.
• The Court followed Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of U.P., (1979) 4 SCC 537 to emphasize that a personal hearing is required before terminating an employee from service.
• The Court followed S.Govindaraju v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (1986) 3 SCC 273 to support the principle that an opportunity for explanation must be given before terminating an employee.
• The Court followed Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632 to highlight that principles of natural justice must be read into rules, even if they are silent.
• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondent, Nirma Industries Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2013) 8 SCC 20, State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706, and Dharampal Satyapal Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519, stating that they did not apply to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Violation of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the termination order was passed without providing adequate reasons, the police verification report, or a personal hearing to the appellant. This was seen as a severe violation of natural justice principles.
• Lack of Reasoned Order: The Court highlighted that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain reasons. The absence of reasons in the show cause notice and termination order was a critical factor in the decision.
• Inordinate Delay: The Court was critical of the 25-year delay in submitting the police verification report, which had a significant impact on the appellant’s service and pension benefits.
• Citizenship: The Court acknowledged the appellant’s claim of citizenship based on the migration certificate and other documents.

Sentiment Analysis:

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates a strong emphasis on procedural fairness and the rights of the employee.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The ratio of fact to law in the Supreme Court’s decision shows a significant emphasis on the legal principles and procedural aspects, though the factual aspects of the case were also considered.

Logical Reasoning:

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta. The Court restored the order of the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal, which had initially set aside the termination order. The Court also directed the State to reinstate Basudev Dutta with all consequential benefits, including back wages and pensionary benefits.

The Supreme Court also issued a direction to the police authorities that they must complete the police verification report within six months from the date of appointment. The Court also directed the State to pay the cost of litigation to the appellant.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving employee terminations, especially in the context of government service. It reinforces the following principles:

• Adherence to Natural Justice: Employers must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that employees are given a fair opportunity to defend themselves before termination.
• Reasoned Orders: Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must issue reasoned orders, specifying the grounds for their decisions.
• Timely Verification: Police verification reports must be completed in a timely manner to avoid undue hardship to employees.
• Protection of Employee Rights: The judgment underscores the protection of employee rights, particularly for long-serving employees with unblemished records.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof regarding citizenship lies on the person claiming it, but the State must provide a fair opportunity to the employee to defend their case.

Overall, this judgment serves as a landmark decision in service law, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of employee rights in India.