Calcutta High Court directs supply of Police Verification Report in dismissal case under RTI Act

Background and appointment details

The matter in Parijat Pattanayak Vs Union of India & Ors. arose from a service dispute involving an assessee appointed in the Income Tax Department.

  1. The assessee initially entered service in April 2014 as a Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department. His engagement was made on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in government service.
  2. This provisional appointment was subsequently regularized in February 2016, after which the assessee continued to serve in the same capacity.

Allegations and termination from service

  1. In December 2024, the assessee’s services were brought to an end. This action stemmed from a complaint made by his elder brother.
  2. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the assessee had obtained his appointment by relying on fake and forged documents.
  3. Based on this accusation, a charge-sheet was issued, and a memorandum of charges was duly served upon the assessee.
  4. Following departmental proceedings, the assessee was ultimately dismissed from service in December 2024.

Grievance regarding non-supply of Police Verification Report

  1. The core grievance placed before the Court was not a direct challenge to the dismissal order itself but the non-supply of a crucial document used in the disciplinary process.
  2. The assessee contended that although he received the memorandum of charges and was aware of certain materials relied upon, a specific document, namely the Police Verification Report (PVR) referred to in a letter dated 14.03.2023, was never given to him.
  3. According to the assessee, this PVR was an important piece of evidence considered by the authorities while reaching their conclusion, and the failure to provide a copy of it deprived him of a fair and meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

Attempts to obtain the PVR under the Right to Information Act, 2005

  1. To secure access to the PVR, the assessee invoked Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed an RTI application.
  2. The Public Information Officer rejected the request.
  3. The assessee then pursued the statutory remedies available under the RTI framework:
    • First appeal: rejected
    • Second appeal: also rejected
  4. Ultimately, by order dated 30.10.2024, the Information Commissioner declined to direct disclosure of the PVR, upholding the previous rejections.

Writ petition before Calcutta High Court

  1. Aggrieved by the Information Commissioner’s order dated 30.10.2024, the assessee approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition.
  2. The writ petition was confined to the issue of supply of the PVR; it did not incorporate a direct challenge to the order of dismissal from service.
  3. The records showed that the only document the assessee specifically insisted on was the copy of the Police Verification Report referenced in the communication dated 14.03.2023, which he stated had never been provided to him at any stage.

Objections by the respondents

  1. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Bhattachary advanced two primary submissions before the Court:

1. Objection regarding array of parties