MANORANJAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of parties, this writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself. Counter affidavit and rejoinder thereto are on record. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition raises a short issue. He submits that petitioner who was appointed as Compiler, pursuant to his success through Bihar Public Service Commission (in short B.P.S.C.) in 1992, was terminated by order dated 13.4.1999, being the order of the Director, Planning Department in the Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation, on the ground of alleged impersonation and that petitioner's name did not exist in the verification list of B.P.S.C. He challenged this before this Court and the matter was remanded for detailed representation and consideration before the Director. It was further observed that if upon reconsideration, it is found that there was need to recall the dismissal order, the Director shall pass such order within the time specified therein. This was the order dated 2.12.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4684 of 1999. Pursuant thereto, petitioner filed his representation. After hearing the representation, by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, being the order dated 20.8.2005, though the Director clearly given a finding that the charges of impersonation or other irregularity in seeking employment could not be established, petitioner would be reinstated with immediate effect as a fresh appointee. The grievance is that this order in effect makes the initial order of dismissal bad. If that be so, then the petitioner cannot be treated as new appointee rather it would be reinstated with all consequences.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner cannot be given either continuity or wages for the period during which he remained dismissed on the principle of no work no pay and secondly because the position was brought about by his own conduct.

(3.) Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. From the order as contained in Annexure-3 being the dismissal order and the order ordering his reinstatement as contained in Annexure-1 being the order dated 20.8.2005, it is clear that the authorities have found that the charge on which he has been dismissed could not be established. The case of impersonation and other wrong alleged could not be established. It is because of that the dismissal order was recalled and he was directed to be appointed again.