KEDAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight writ petitions have been filed by the 17 writ petitioners challenging the order of their termination from service passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Kosi Range, Saharsa (respondent No. 4). Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement and selection process for the recruitment to the post of Constables in Saharsa range, these petitioners applied and appeared before the selection committee which was constituted by the order of the Director-General of Police according to Police Order No. 202 of 1988. All the petitioners were appointed to the post of Constable sometime in the year 1992. Thereafter they were sent for training and they have been working since then. It has also been stated in the writ petition that some of the petitioners have been rewarded for their performance of work. However, while they were working in the capacity of Constables, the impugned show-cause notice dated 5th October, 1995 (Annexure- 2) was issued by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Kosi Range, Saharsa, asking the petitioners to show-cause why their services should not be terminated on the alleged ground of irregularity in their selection. It may be mentioned here that no particular irregularity has been mentioned in the said show-cause notice. However, pursuant to the said show- cause notice, the petitioners gave a detailed reply and thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed which is dated 30th December, 1995 only stating therein that the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioners was not found satisfactory.

(3.) This Court is of the opinion, on perusal of the show-cause notice and the final order that in the show-cause notice no particular has been given as to why the petitioners selection to the post of constable was found to be irregular. Therefore, the petitioners were asked to give a reply against a vague notice and the final order passed is equally a nonspeaking one in which it has been stated that the reply filed by the petitioners to the said show-cause notice was found unsatisfactory. This Court is firmly of the view that on such show-cause notice and the final order, the persons so selected and appointed to the post of Constable and have been working there cannot be thrown out of their employment. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court in number of cases that when a person's employment is taken away, the same has the effect of depriving the livelihood of the person concerned and as suck the livelihood of the person concerned can be taken away only on the basis of a procedure which is fair, just and proper.