B.P. Banerjee, J. - (1.) In the instant Rule the petitioner challenged the validity of tho order, terminating the petitioners service, dated 13.1.77 by the Executive Engineer, Hooghly (Agri-Mechi) Division, Government of West Bengal. The petitioners case is that the petitioner was appointed temporarily to the post of Chowkidar and posted at the River Lift Irrigation Centres at Charsultanpur-II within Balaguh block in the Police Station of Balagarh, District Hooghly by the order dated January 20, 1975 issued by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter the petitioner was detained under the provisions of sub-Section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and that during detention the petitioner made representation before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the said Act. It appears that the said Advisory Board on consideration of the said representation was of the opinion that there was no valid ground for detention and accordingly, the petitioner was released from detention After the petitioner was released from detention the petitioner was allowed to join in the post but subsequently by the impugned order dated 13.1.77 the petitioners service was terminated due to receipt of an adverse report in regard to verification of character and antecedents from Police authority.
(2.) Mr. Tapan Kumar Pal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that before the impugned order was passed on the ground of adverse police report, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to know the contents and or to controvert the same, and further contended that there should not be any material on the basis of which there should be any adverse Police report against the petitioner except that the petitioner was detained under the said detention order and was released by the order of the Advisory Board Mr. Pal relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the West Bengal Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 which provides that if the Government is of the opinion that a Government servant is reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, or is associated with others in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts of his reliability his services can be terminated. But before doing so the persons connected must be given an opportunity of being heard Mr. Pal contended that on the basis of the Police Verification reports obtained behind the back of the petitioner, the petitioners service could not be terminated and in support of his contention the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashanker Raganvanshi reported in AIR 1983 SC 374 : 1983 Labour & Industrial Cases page 511 , wherein the Supreme Court, held that the whole business of seeking police reports, about the political faith, belief and association and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. It offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individuals service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce "McCarthyism" into India. "McCarthyism" is obnoxious to tho whole philosophy of cur Constitution. It is different matter altogether if a police report is sought on the question of involvement of the candidate in any criminal or subversive activity in order to find out his suitability for public employment. Mr. Pal also submitted that, in any event, the respondents cannot rely upon the Police report without giving any opportunity of hearing. In support of his contention, Mr. Pal relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of R. Pattabhi v. High Court of A.P. reported in 1980 (2) S.L.R at page 433 and relied on a passage at 23 of the said judgment in which the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on the observation made by the Kerala High Court in P. Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala that "An exclusion from Government service on the ground that a persons character and antecedents are not acceptable to the appointing authority may affect his reputation and may make him ineligible for a future employment. To be deprived not only of the present Government employment but of future opportunity for it certainly is no small injury when the Government employment so dominates the field of opportunity. Therefore, if a person has a right to be free from damage to reputation it might follow that the Government or the authority if they want to exclude a person from service on the ground that his character and antecedents are not acceptable, should give him an opportunity of being heard".
(3.) No body appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition and no affidavit in-opposition has been filed to controvert any of the allegations made in the writ petition.;