INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs. RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SUNDESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner. This appeal is directed against judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 4.11.2009 whereby writ petition bearing CWJC No. 8069 of 2006 Reported in preferred by the respondent no. 1 was allowed and the order of termination of service of the writ petitioner dated 9.4.2005, contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, was quashed on the basis of findings that the writ petitioner was not given any notice or information as to on what grounds his service was being terminated and besides denial of such opportunity, he was not furnished the required documents to meet the ground of termination which was found established by the Cabinet Vigilance Department which found the appointment illegal. Secondly, the Writ Court found that the writ petitioner was not guilty of any fraud in obtaining appointment on the post of Chest Therapist although he had applied for appointment to the post of Physiotherapist.

(2.) So far as the first ground is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition clearly indicate that by Annexure-6 a show cause notice dated 18.3.2005 was issued to the petitioner as to why in view of inquiry by the Vigilance Department his services be not terminated as the appointment was found to be illegal. By Annexure-7, dated 20.3.2005 the writ petitioner gave a reply and requested for copies of relevant documents. In paragraph 9 of the memo of appeal, the appellants have given full details regarding process adopted for passing the impugned order of termination. It has been categorically stated that when the writ petitioner requested for supply of relevant documents through his petition dated 20.3.2005, he was supplied relevant documents including complaint letter, vigilance inquiry report of five pages but he again demanded several documents. Again he was supplied with all relevant documents consisting of 28 pages and two days time was granted for furnishing explanation vide letter dated 6.4.2005. In paragraph 10, it has further been averred that the writ petitioner gave explanation on 8.4.2005 which was examined and not found satisfactory leading to order of dismissal from service issued on 9.4.2005. From the impugned order dated 9.4.2005, it was shown that the letter disclosed the ground for removal as illegal appointment disclosed by vigilance inquiry. The impugned order also disclosed that the final show cause dated 8.4.2005 was not found satisfactory.

(3.) The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the writ petitioner but it has been submitted on his behalf that in fact, there was no illegality in the appointment and in any case he had served on the post for about six years since his appointment in the year 1999 and therefore, he should not have been removed on the ground alleged in the impugned order.