IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8343 of 2009 Gagan Prasad, son of Shri Adalat Singh, resident of village – Sukshrauli, P O – Barauli, District – Bhojpur -Petitioner Versus 1 Union of India through the Secretary, Deptt of Home, Government of India, New Delhi 2 Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Bihar Cadre, Patna 3 Additional Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur 4 Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur -Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate *** 3 09.09.2009 On behalf of respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek time to file a rejoinder rather would rely on the statements made in the counter affidavit for the purposes of adjudication and disposal of the present writ petition. Matter is heard and with the consent of parties, it is disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner had applied for recruitment as Constable General Duty in the CRPF pursuant to advertisement issued on or about 13.08.2002 for recruitment in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. The petitioner alongwith others appeared for qualifying physical test then the written test and having qualified, he was called for interview. He was seeking appointment in the reserve category of OBC. Pursuant to this preliminary test, he was found fit for appointment and called for final medical test which also he successfully passed. Accordingly, petitioner was issued offer for appointment and he reported to Group Centre, 2 Muzaffarpur as directed on 16.07.2003. The petitioner, admittedly, fell sick and was treated at Group Centre, CRPF Hospital at Muzaffarpur on 03.09.2003 and at S K Memorial Hospital, Muzaffarpur on 08.09.2003. These facts are admitted in the counter affidavit. It appears that there were large scale complaints about illegalities being committed in the selection process. This led to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Patna raiding the Group Centre, Muzaffarpur on 26.09.2003 and all the dossiers and connected documents of candidates including that of the petitioner were seized by them for investigation. This is again admitted in the counter affidavit itself. Petitioner has stated and it is disputed in the counter affidavit that because of illness of petitioner, petitioner’s father was informed and petitioner went home on 14.09.2003 sometime before the CBI raid. He then, as per counter affidavit, reported to the Group Centre on 20.10.2003. By then, as noted above, CBI, Patna had carried away all documents relating to this appointment including that of the petitioner. Petitioner has stated which is not disputed that they were sent back as the process could not be formalized in absence of document and was asked to await intimation from Group Centre with regard to rejoining. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that on 28.03.2004, keeping in view of uncertainty of time in finalizing investigation being carried by CBI authorities, all effected candidates who had returned to their home were to be intimated about selection and appointment on receipt of the investigation report. In the counter affidavit, it is further 3 admitted that CBI returned the petitioner’s dossiers to the Group Centre for further course of action but as petitioner had not reported back to the Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur, he was not directed to rejoin. At this stage, I may point out that serious contradiction in statement and stand is there on behalf of respondents. On one hand, they referred to a decision of 28.03.2004 wherein it was decided that after CBI investigation is finalized, candidates would be called back from their homes. On the other hand, they say that having received petitioner’s dossiers back from CBI, as the petitioner had not reported back, no intimation was sent to him, a clear contradiction in terms. It is repeatedly stated in the counter affidavit that as petitioner had not returned, he was not sent any intimation letter or appointment/selection letter. Petitioner then states that having come to know that several people had been of late asked to rejoin duties of the same selection process, petitioner went to Group Centre to report. He submitted application for appointment and drawl of back wages. His application was forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Range Muzaffarpur and to the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna. The letters of the authorities of the Group Centre has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit and are dated 25.11.2006. A reference to the said would show that the Group Centre very fairly recommended the acceptance of his joining but again there was complete silence in this regard. Petitioner was not intimated any further. 4 Petitioner, having come to know thereafter that still people are being issued joining letters, filed this application. In sum and substance, the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that as the petitioner had allegedly deserted and not reported back after 07.11.2003, he was not required to be communicated anything about formalizing his appointment. Petitioner, on the other hand, states and it is not disputed that petitioner and his like were sent back home awaiting final report of CBI investigation. It was then the duty of the respondents to intimate the petitioner as to when petitioner was required to return. Admittedly, no such intimation was sent to the petitioner and even when petitioner tried to join inspite of favourable recommendations from the Group Centre who were fully aware of the facts, no appropriate action was taken. Having considered the matter, in my view, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for fault of the respondents. Obviously, there is something more than what meets the eyes. Respondents themselves admit that petitioner’s dossier was returned by the CBI soon after the raid meaning thereby CBI did not find petitioner involved with other officials of CRPF in seeking appointment wrongly yet petitioner was kept out by the respondent CRPF and not sent any intimation to rejoin whereas several others were given such intimations which, as stated in the writ petition and not denied in the counter affidavit, included wrongful gainers who were indicted by the CBI. In such a situation, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He had fully, competently qualified at all stages. Only the last formal letter 5 of acceptance of appointment and joining was to be issued which was denied to the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. In such a situation, I am left with no option but to direct the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner which joining in fact had already been done as admitted in the counter affidavit itself much before the CBI raid. Petitioner having already qualified at all levels of interview, written test, medical test, he would not be subjected to any further test or examination. I may clarify that petitioner was not at fault. Petitioner’s joining would be deemed to be the duty when he had originally reported to the Group Centre on 16.07.2003 but the petitioner shall not be paid his remunerations till he join pursuant to order of this Court. For the purposes of continuity of service and seniority, it is 16.07.2003 that would be taken as the date of joining simply because petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the fault and laches on part of the respondents which is writ large on the face of the records. Petitioner’s joining would, accordingly, be accepted and he would be deemed to be in regular service as a General Duty Constable pursuant to the selection process aforesaid. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)