LAWS(PAT)-2008-4-56

RAM AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 29, 2008
RAM AVTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. This letters patent appeal is directed against the. order of the learned single Judge dated 6.9.1996 High Court Of Judicature At Patna Versus Ram Kripal Prasad whereby the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3583 of 1996 was dismissed with a finding that petitioners had been given opportunity of hearing before the Committee looking into nature of their appointments which is alleged to be fraudulent and de hors the rules of recruitment and against the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Another finding of the writ court is that on facts the petitioners ' appointment has rightly been found to have been made de hors the rules of recruitment and against the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners preferred a review petition to raise certain fresh contentions including a contention that the Chief Medical Officer -cum -Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur had not been validly appointed to that post and was not entitled to act as Civil Surgeon and as appointing authority who could terminate the service of the petitioners.

(2.) The order dated 20.2.1998 dismissing the review application bearing Civil Review No. 282 of 1997 has also been challenged in this letters patent appeal.

(3.) ON behalf of appellants/writ petitioners it was submitted that since the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur was not properly holding that post therefore, he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of termination contained in annexures -1 and 2. It has further been submitted that the opportunity given to the appellants/writ petitioners some of whom appeared before the enquiry, was not adequate and sufficient. The next contention is that the enquiry report suffers from error and it could not be presumed that the order showing appointment of the petitioners by way of adjustment contained in annexure -3 is a forged or fraudulent document only because such order was not found issued from the concerned office as per issue and dispatch register maintained in usual course of business in the concerned office. It was submitted that appellants/writ petitioners had entered into service on the basis of annexure -3 on 6.7.1987 and they have been removed by the impugned orders dated 19.3.1996 and 22.3.1996 (annexures -1 and 2 to the writ petition) after about 9 years and hence on account of such delay the petitioners deserve to be retained in service on the ground of equity or at least no recovery should be made from them of wages they have received for rendering actual service.