LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-141

RAGHUNANDAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

Decided On November 12, 2009
RAGHUNANDAN YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order, as contained in Memo No. 1509 dated 30.6.2005, passed by the then In-charge Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application, by which services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect and petitioner has been asked to show-cause as to why a police case be not lodged against him for producing a forged appointment letter. The order shows that, in compliance to the directions of the Chief Secretary, as contained in two letters, for enquiry into the validity of the appointments made after 1.1.1980, the case of the petitioner was enquired into. It mentions that the records and the documents produced by the petitioner, specially copy of the letter No. 92 dated 9.9.1991 purported to have been issued from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, were examined. He found that the said letter was in reference to some interim orders of this Court and by it a number of incumbents, including the petitioner, were allowed to continue in service. Subsequently, an enquiry was made from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, in respect of the said letter, and it transpired that the name of the petitioner in that letter was an interpolation. The said letter was compared with its original and it was found that, at Serial No. 18, in place of the name of the petitioner, the name of one Bachchu Tiwari was mentioned in the original letter. Thus, it was found that in view of the said letter, the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, had found the appointment letter of the petitioner as forged and fabricated. Therefore, by letter No. 3540 dated 9.12.2004 and again by letter No. 375 dated 7.3.2005, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur, asked the petitioner to show-cause which he did. The reply show-causes of the petitioner were not found satisfactory and it was held that appointment of the petitioner was forged and fabricated. Accordingly, his service was terminated from the date of issue of the order and orders were issued to the In-charge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Patori, to take steps for payment of salary of the petitioner for the period prior to the issuance of the letter, in accordance with law, and to lodge a criminal case against him for obtaining appointment on the basis of a forged appointment letter and inform him accordingly.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was issued without holding a proper enquiry against him. He submits that, as the petitioner was confirmed in service, the respondents were required to first hold an enquiry against him in consonance with the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires that charges ought to have been framed against him with opportunity to show cause, and he ought to have been given an opportunity to lead evidence to repeal the charges and, thereafter, a proper report ought to have been submitted against which he could have submitted his second show-cause and, thereafter only, the Disciplinary Authority could have passed an appropriate order. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey v. the State of Bihar and Ors.,2008 1 PLJR(SC) 841. He subunits that against the said decision of the Division Bench State of Bihar moved the Apex Court through SLP No. 10242/2008, which stands dismissed. He submits that instead of following the said procedure, as contemplated in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the respondents have only issued show-cause notices to the petitioner and, thereafter, have terminated his service. He submits that, as would be evident from his service book (Annexure-42), petitioner's services had already been made permanent. Hence, his services could be terminated only in compliance with Article 311(2), and not otherwise.