SC Directs Police to Complete Verification of Govt Job Candidates Within Six Months to Prevent Delays

The Supreme Court ordered police authorities to complete verification of government job appointees within six months of their appointment, emphasizing accountability and avoiding delays in regularization.

SC Directs Police to Complete Verification of Govt Job Candidates Within Six Months to Prevent Delays

The Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive to police authorities across all states to complete the verification of candidates selected for government service within six months of their appointment. Highlighting the adverse consequences of delays in verification, the Court emphasized that such delays not only disrupt the regularization process but also violate principles of natural justice, as seen in a case from West Bengal involving a 25-year delay in a police report.


Key Directives by the Supreme Court

  • The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice R Mahadevan directed:
    • “The police official(s) of all the States must complete the enquiry and file the report as regards the character, antecedents, nationality, and genuineness of documents within six months or the statutory period prescribed.”
  • The Court clarified that candidates’ appointments must only be regularized after their credentials are verifiedto prevent complications.

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

  • Background: The appellant, a Para Medical Ophthalmic Assistant, joined government service in 1985 based on his migration certificate. The police report, mandated within three months, was submitted after an unexplained 25-year delay in 2010.
  • Termination Without Hearing: Based on the delayed verification report, the appellant was terminated in 2011 without being afforded a personal hearing, depriving him of his pensionary benefits after 26 years of service.

Court’s Observations

  • The Court criticized the unjustified delay in submitting the verification report, stating:
    • “Such a callous and lackadaisical attitude by the authorities cannot be countenanced. The termination order is arbitrary, illegal, and violates the principles of natural justice.”
  • Violation of Natural Justice: It was noted that the appellant’s termination violated precedents mandating a personal hearing before termination.
  • Grant of Service Benefits: The Court ordered that all due pensionary benefits be disbursed to the appellant within three months.

Significance of the Judgment

  • Timely Verification Essential: Ensures that government appointments are regularized promptly and without procedural delays.
  • Natural Justice Upheld: Reiterates the need for a fair hearing before any adverse employment action is taken.
  • Accountability in Administration: Sends a clear message to police and administrative authorities to avoid bureaucratic apathy.

Case: BASUDEV DUTTA VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

SC Upholds Conviction Under Common Intention: Severity of Injuries Alone Cannot Reduce Punishment
Legal Wires
SC Upholds Conviction Under Common Intention: Severity of Injuries Alone Cannot Reduce Punishment
The Supreme Court ruled that punishment cannot be reduced for individuals acting with common intention merely because the injuries inflicted by them were less severe than those caused by co-accused.
Supreme Court to Decide: Should the Age for Annulment Under PCMA Be 18 or 21 While Addressing Gender Inequality?
Legal Wires
Supreme Court to Decide: Should the Age for Annulment Under PCMA Be 18 or 21 While Addressing Gender Inequality?
The Supreme Court examines whether the age of majority for males under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act is 18 or 21, determining the limitation period for filing marriage annulment petitions.
Bombay High Court: Limited Evidence Invalidates SC/ST Act Charges in Complex Case
Legal Wires
Bombay High Court: Limited Evidence Invalidates SC/ST Act Charges in Complex Case
The Bombay High Court quashed SC/ST Act charges for most accused, citing lack of evidence, while upholding IPC charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation for four individuals involved in the case.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources
No Sources Available
Ask AI