The Supreme Court recently emphasized that police officers must verify the character, background, nationality, and authenticity of documents submitted by candidates selected for government jobs within six months of their appointment. The Court highlighted that this verification should occur at the initial stage to prevent future complications. This ruling came as the Court set aside the termination of an ophthalmic assistant just two months before their retirement.

Background of the case

The petitioner, who joined public service on March 6, 1985, claimed to be an Indian citizen based on a migration certificate issued to his father on May 19, 1969, following the family's migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). For over two decades, his citizenship was not questioned. However, just two months before his retirement, a police verification report dated July 7, 2010, claimed that he was not an Indian citizen. Relying on this report, the authorities abruptly terminated his service. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favour, stating that the termination was unlawful. Despite this, the authorities appealed to the High Court through a writ petition, and surprisingly, the High Court upheld the termination, citing the police report. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his termination was arbitrary, unfair, and violated the principles of natural justice.

The analysis of the court

The Supreme Court held that the 25-year delay in submitting the police verification report was “arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained.” The Court noted that the Appellant, who had served for 26 years without any issues, was unfairly denied his pension benefits due to this report.

The court was of the opinion that the termination is violative of principle of natural justice and stated that “Curiously, in all these documents, including the show cause notice, no reason was mentioned as to why the appellant was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant. Furthermore, the alleged police verification report was not served on the appellant. As such, the appellant was unable to make his defense with supportive materials. Resultantly, he was terminated from service,”

The court highlighted that Articles 5 to 11 of Part II of the Indian Constitution outline the rules for citizenship. It stated that the appellant is eligible for citizenship by registration under Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, as Section 4 of the Act grants citizenship by descent to his father. The court also referred to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020, clarifying that individuals like the appellant should not be labeled as "illegal migrants."

It stressed that when a citizenship application is submitted, the authorities must make a decision within a reasonable time, considering all relevant laws and the evidence provided by the applicant. However, the bench noted that no such decision was made in the appellant’s case.

The Court observed that the Appellant was neither given a copy of the police verification report nor given a chance to respond to its conclusions. Additionally, the termination order did not provide any clear reasons for declaring him unsuitable, which amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

As a result, the court in its judgement wrote that, “The High Court erroneously allowed the writ petition filed by the State and set aside the order of the Tribunal by observing that the action of the authorities in issuing a show cause notice and inviting a reply therefrom and the availing of such opportunity by the appellant, is in adherence with the principles of natural justice. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Tribunal to that extent.”

Order to police officer to verify the document

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice R. Mahadevan emphasized that police officials across all states must complete the verification process regarding a candidate's character, background, nationality, and authenticity of documents within the time frame specified by the statute or government orders, or at most within six months from the candidate's appointment. The Court clarified that appointments should only be finalized after this verification is completed to prevent complications like those in the present case.