PRAKASH CHANDRA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially, the writ application was filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to pay his salary of the post of clerk, due from August, 2000 onwards. However, when the case was taken on 20.02.2002 it appeared that some enquiry was pending against him. Therefore, the respondents were directed to expedite the enquiry and conclude the same within four months. Respondents, accordingly, concluded the enquiry and, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 04.06.2002, terminated petitioner's services by order dated 7.11.2002. Petitioner, accordingly, filed I.A. No. 5171 of 2002, placing on record the order of his termination and the enquiry report as Annexures 13 and 14, respectively, with a prayer to amend his writ application for a liberty to challenge the said termination order.

(2.) As during the pendency of the writ application, services of the petitioner has been terminated, the said interlocutory application is allowed and the same is directed to be treated as part of the writ application and petitioner is permitted to challenge the enquiry report and termination order as contained in Annexures 14 and 13, respectively.

(3.) The impugned termination order (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of respondent No. 5 is exactly a four-line order. It refers to a letter No. 428 dated 4.6.2002 issued by the respondent No. 5 himself in the light of the Chief Secretary's letter No. 696 (22) dated 19.6.1999, issued in the light of letter of the Divisional Commissioner issued in reference to C.W.J.C. No. 1585 of 2002, holding the appointment of petitioner as illegal and terminating his services in consequent to letter No. 4/Q1-60/93 dated 30.8.2002 of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary and letter No. 971 (4) dated 30.8.2002 of the Director (Administration). This order does not mention about any enquiry or any show cause notice to petitioner with any opportunity to him to file his representation. The letter of the respondent No. 5 bearing No. 428 dated 4.6.2002, which has been referred in this order, is annexed as Annexure-14 by the petitioner along with his amendment application. This letter (Annexure-14) which has been addressed by the Commissioner, Patna Division to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department, mentions about an enquiry, held in respect of appointment of petitioner, in the light of the orders passed in the writ application earlier. It mentions the details in respect of appointment of petitioner and information received in respect of the same from the office of the respondent-Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, from which it appeared that records were not available in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, in respect of appointment of petitioner. In the letter it has been concluded that rules in respect of appointment were not complied with in respect of appointment of the petitioner, inasmuch as, names were not called for from the Employment Exchange; advertisement was not published and there was no recommendation of the selection committee in the matter. Therefore, it was concluded in the letter that appointment of the petitioner appeared to be illegal and recommendation was made for necessary action in the matter. This letter also does not show that petitioner was ever given any notice to present his case in his defence in the enquiry or he was ever apprised of even, about the enquiry going on against him. As rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, this was sufficient to set aside the impugned order, holding the same to have been issued in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, with an opportunity to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh with adequate opportunity to him to defend his case for continuity in service, and thereafter to pass fresh orders.