STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVT.OF BIHAR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Vs. INDRA MOHAN RAI S/O SRI RAMCHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Bihar and its functionaries have preferred this appeal, dissatisfied with the order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent was allowed; the order of termination dated 1st September, 2004 was quashed and the respondents therein (present appellants) were directed to reinstate the writ petitioner.

(2.) WE shall refer, hereinafter, the present respondent, 'the petitioner" and the present appellants, "the respondents". The petitioner was appointed as Treasury Guard in the office of Senior Electrical Inspector, Department of Energy, Bihar, temporarily vide order dated 28th April, 1987. His services came to be extended from time to time for a period of three months each time for about two years. Subsequently, vide order dated 26th May, 1989, the petitioner 'sappointment was extended until further orders. It appears that by an office order dated 24th November, 1990, the petitioner 'sservices were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8331 of 1990. This Court allowed the writ petition on 29th June, 1992. Consequent upon the decision of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 27th August, 1992. He continued in service uninterruptedly. He was given increments from time to time. The benefits of revised pay scale were also extended to him from effective dates as and when these benefits were made applicable. After twelve years of his reinstatement, the petitioner received a notice dated 14th July, 2004 from the Electrical Inspector calling upon him why action for terminating his service be not taken as upon enquiry being made into the appointments by the regional offices of the energy department, the petitioner 'sappointment has been found to be not in accord with the procedure prescribed by the circular Nos. 5920 dated 18th June, 1993, 7639 dated 11th June, 1986 and 593 dated 18th June, 1993. By the said notice dated 14th July, 2004, the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner responded to the said notice vide his written reply dated 26th July, 2004. He reiterated that his appointment has been in accord with the government circulars issued from time to time and that there was no illegality in his appointment. However, it appears that petitioner 'sexplanation was not accepted and his services were terminated vide order dated 1st September, 2004. In the order dated 1st September, 2004, three deficiencies in the appointment of the petitioner were stated namely, (i) that no advertisement was issued prior to the appointment; (ii) that while making appointment, roster was not followed and (iii) that the list of eligible candidates was not requisitioned from the employment exchange.

(3.) THE legality of the order dated 1st September, 2004 was put in issue by the petitioner by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 11203 of 2004.