PRADEEP KUMAR MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH common grievance the petitioners in these two writ applications have moved this court with a prayer to quash the orders of termination of the petitioners from the date of receipt of the same. As both the writ applications were heard together, for convenience, this judgment will govern both the cases.

(2.) FIRST the facts : According to the petitioners, pursuant to advertisement for appointment on various posts duly published in the daily newspaper, they applied for the same. Their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Ranchi after the scrutiny of the applications. The names were sent to the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, (respondent no. 6) for consideration and for appointment in the respective posts. The Selection Committee/Interview Board consisted of respondent no. 6 as its Chairman, the Dy. Superintendent being the Sr. Officer of the establishment of Civil Surgeon and the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, which was constituted strictly on the guidelines contained in the Chief Secretary's letter being memo no. 16440 dated 3.12.80. The petitioners being interviewed and found suitable, their names were included in the panel for appointment which was prepared in four parts consisting of the lists of applicants of scheduled tribe, scheduled caste, general category and a waiting list for schedule tribes, scheduled castes and general candidates. The said panel, prepared by the Selection Committee, was sent to the Health Department by letter no.99 dated 20.1.90. The Director in Chief, Health Services duly approved the said panel which would be evident from memo no. 53 (IIC) dated 5.2.90. However, after a few months of their appointment, the services of all the petitioners were terminated on the basis of a teleprinter message dated 16.5.90 issued from the office of the Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar (Annexure 8). The petitioners challenged the same before this court in CWJC nos. 1212 and 1329 of 1990 (R) and the said termination orders were quashed on 5.11.90 (Annexure 10). The Division Bench noticed the facts as follows : "We have already noticed that there are materials available on the record to show that in pursuance of the advertisement, a panel was prepared and persons out of the said panel were appointed. These appointments were approved by the Director -in -Chief, Health Services, Bihar, if the State Government found that there had been any irregularity in making appointments, it could have ordered an inquiry into the matter. If the Government proposed to pass any order which would have adversely affected the petitioners, the authorities were required to hear the petitioners which admittedly in these cases were not done." This court, holding that the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioners on the basis of the teleprinter message, quashed the impunged orders and also held that the petitioners were entitled to their salaries for all the periods. However, the Division Bench gave liberty by observing "needless to say that if the State Government is of opinion that the question of application of the petitioners should be inquired into, it can do so after giving notice to the petitioners".

(3.) PURSUANT to the order of the High Court respondent no. 6 issued a circular to all the Medical Officers incharge directing them to furnish the details of the certificates of the petitioners within one week of the receipt of the letter failing which the salaries of the petitioners shall be stopped. A copy of the said show cause notice dated 11.11.91 is annexure 11. The petitioners furnished their certificates and after finding that they were genuine, the salaries of the petitioners were released. However, after lapse of one year, once again respondent no. 6 issued another show cause notice asking the petitioners as to why their services be not terminated. This show cause dated 29.8.92 is annexure 12. The petitioners submitted their show cause on 21.10.92 (Annexure 13) and after considering the same the petitioners were not only allowed to continue in their services but also allowed three increments in salary. When it was found that the matter of appointment had been set at rest, all of a sudden on 5.5.94 the department of Health and Family Welfare inquired from the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi as to whether the services of the petitioners have been terminated or not and, if not, to terminate their services after issuing show cause notice to them. This letter is dated 5.5.94 which is about two and half years of show cause notice as contained in annexure 12. This latest show cause on the basis of the letter of the Health Commissioner dated 5.5.94 is annexure 14. The Civil Surgeon, on the basis of the said letter, again issued show cause notice to the petitioners by his letter dated 4.6.94 asking them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. The petitioners have annexed a copy of the said show cause notice as annexure 15. The said order of the Health Commissioner dated 5.5.94 (Annexure 14) and subsequent show cause dated 4.6.94 (Annexure 15) were again impunged by the petitioners before this court in CWJC Nos. 1586, 1647, 1976 and 3039 of 1994(R). The order of the High Court, in those writ applications, are dated 30.6.94, 18.5.94 and 20.3.95 contained in annexure 16 series.