Parijat Pattanayak Vs Union of India & Ors. (Culcutta High Court)
The petitioner was provisionally appointed as a Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department in April 2014 on compassionate grounds following the death of his father in harness. His appointment was regularized in February 2016, and he continued discharging his duties. In December 2024, his services were terminated pursuant to a complaint lodged by his elder brother alleging that the petitioner had secured the appointment using fake and forged documents. A charge-sheet was framed, and he was dismissed from service.
The petitioner contended that although he was served with a memorandum of charges, a document relied upon by the authorities—namely, the Police Verification Report (PVR) referred to in a letter dated 14.03.2023—was not furnished to him. According to him, non-supply of this document prevented him from presenting an effective defence. He sought the PVR under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but his request was rejected at all stages, including by the Information Commissioner on 30.10.2024. Challenging this rejection, he filed the present writ petition.
The respondents argued that respondent nos. 2 and 3, being quasi-judicial authorities, were unnecessary parties and should be removed from the array. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not challenged the dismissal order itself.
