BANDE LAL TATMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that though he was appointed as a Chaukidar on 14.6.1982 and Chaukidars were declared as Government servant on 1.1.1990, an ex -parte order was passed on 5.3.2000 removing him from service with effect from 30.4.2000. It is submitted that this appears to have been done by the respondents by making a change in the date of birth of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner, neither reasons were furnished to him to do away with his service. The submission is that it would appear that the respondents have acted unilaterally by making change in the date of birth and terminating him from service.

(3.) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court arrives at the conclusion that the action of the respondent in preventing the petitioner from discharging his duty after 30.4.2000 by an unilateral act is contrary to law. The respondents would be, therefore, obliged to issue fresh notice upon the petitioner and after considering reply to the same as also an opportunity of personal hearing, should the petitioner so request, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.