RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY SON OF SHRI SUNDESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Institute.

(2.) PETITIONER , in this case, has challenged the order of termination of his service issued under the signature of the Director of the Institute dated 9.4.2005, annexed as Annexure -19. The order (Annexure -19) shows that there was some enquiry by the Cabinet Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar in which appointment of petitioner was found illegal. In view of the said report, a show cause was asked from the petitioner which was received by the Director on 8.4.2005 and the impugned order was issued on the very next day i.e. 9.4.2005. The order also shows that a copy of the same was sent to the Joint Secretary of the Health Department, Government of Bihar in compliance to his letter no. 72(1) Health dated 9.3.2005. The said letter dated 9.3.2005 of the Joint Secretary of the Health Department is annexed as Annexure -C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute. This letter shows that on the basis of some complaint of one Tarkeshwar Singh, an MLC, Cabinet Vigilance Department held some enquiry and submitted its report finding the appointment of the petitioner as illegal and therefore, the Health Department of the Government of Bihar took decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. By this letter, the said decision was communicated to the Director of the Institute, to take action in the matter of termination of services of the petitioner within one month after asking show cause from him. Accordingly, petitioner was asked by the Director of the Institute to show cause within three days as to why on account of illegal appointment, his services should not be terminated. Reply of the petitioner is Annexure -7 in which, in very categorical terms, he expressed complete ignorance and lack of knowledge about any complaint of said Tarkeshwar Singh, MLC and the enquiry held by the Cabinet Vigilance Department. In his reply, petitioner asked for copies of the same and expressed that only after getting the copies of the complaint and the Vigilance report, he will be able to file detailed show cause reply at a later date. The impugned order shows that this reply of the petitioner was received by the Director on 8.4.2005 and the impugned order was passed by him on the very next day on 9.4.2005. Facts of the case have been noticed to show that the respondents have acted in absolutely high -handed manner and in utter violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the order passed is patently arbitrary and illegal as submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Institute is an autonomous body and therefore, any action against the petitioner was required to be initiated and taken by the Board of Governors of the Institute, which only is the appointing authority. He also submits that even if some communication was received from the State Government, the Board of Governors was required to hold an independent enquiry with sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before taking any action against him. In view of autonomous status of the Institute, it was not open to them to act upon any communication of the State Government directing them to terminate the services of the petitioner blind folded and treating themselves as subordinate to the State Government.