OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in all these writ applications are the employees of Health Department. Their services have been terminated on the basis of report submitted by Five Men Committee consituted under the direction of High Court in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. The report has put the services of the employees in three categories, irregular, illegal, and forged. Petitioners who have been put in either illegal or forged category, are recommended for termination from service.

(2.) FACTS of almost all the cases disclose that petitioners were appointed long time back right from 1969. to 1987 and thereafter. In some of the cases, appointment of the petitioners were declared illegal on the ground that appointment was made by way of regularization from daily wages employees by an authority who was not competent to make appointment. In some of the cases it has been stated that appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, following the procedure for regular and legal appointment, as such appointments are illegal. In some of the cases, it is stated that appointment letters, on the basis of which petitioners were appointed were not issued from the office of those authorities, who are said to be appointing authority as there is no such entry in register of the concerned office. Appointments made on the basis of such appointment letters have been put in the forged category. It is essential that background of these cases should be discussed before analyzing the grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the enquiry report/ impugned orders and reply submitted by the State to counter the submission made by the petitioners.

(3.) PETITIONERS were directly appointed on Class III posts and Class IV posts and thereafter regularized on their posts. In most of the cases, after their appointments, petitioners continued for more than ten years. They were regularized, their service books were opened and they were made permanent. In some of the cases, petitioners also received benefits of time bound promotion. Subsequently their appointments were questioned by the authorities and enquires were made. On account of questioning of their appointment and continuation of enquiry, salaries of some of the petitioners were withheld, as such, they approached the High Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing writ applications. They got relief from the High Court and directions were issued for payment of salary, as it had been stopped without any finding recorded against genuineness or legality of their appointment. Petitioners thereafter started getting their salary. The enquiry proceeded and in most of the cases finally termination orders were issued on the ground that on the basis of forged letters appointments were made, appointment letters were issued by an incompetent authority against unsanctioned posts and also that appointments were made without observing the selection process for legal appointment, without advertising the posts, giving proper opportunity to eligible candi - dates to participate. A number of writ applications were filed challenging the termination orders. Those writ applications were decided by an order passed in C. W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases. Some of the cases in which termination orders were not quashed Letters Patent Appeals were filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against orders quashing termination orders. Some of the writ applications, which were filed challenging the termination order had remained pending. Finally L.P.As. preferred by the State as well as 18/4/2014 Page 42 Mostt.Sofia Begum @ Sofia Khatoon Versus State Of Bihar petitioners and pending writ applications, were heard analogous. L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003, became the leading case which was heard analogous with several L.P.As. and writ petitions. A marathon arguments were advanced by the petitioners as well as the State. Several questions were raised including the equity as petitioners have continued in their service for several years and in most of the cases their age for any new appointment had expired. Finally all these matters were disposed of without deciding the merit of the case giving direction to the State to decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363]. Direction was to find out that which of the cases come in the category of irregular appointments. In case of irregular appointment, steps be taken to regularize services of such irregularly appointed employees as one time measure and so far the cases coming in the category of illegal and forged, no steps is to be taken for their continuation in service. The direction was that in case irregularly appointed employees have worked for ten years or more against a duly sanctioned posts, without covers of orders of courts or tribunal, their services be regularized initiating a process for regularization within six months from the date of judgment. Further direction was to constitute a committee for holding enquiry. In the light of the direction in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases the State of Bihar, Department of Health constituted five men committee for examining the nature and status of appointments of affected persons. It is pertinent to state here at this juncture that during pendency of the L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases before the High Court, the State Government has undertaken similar task to find out the status of appointments of petitioners and similar employees by constituting three men committee. This committee had also submitted report categorizing appointments of affected employees in three categories; illegal, irregular and forged. However, that report was not considered by the L.P.A. Bench and the matters were disposed of for fresh consideration of factual aspect, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (supra). Five men committee had to complete its task within six months from the date of the order, but it was not done and the time was extended by the High Court for further three months. The committee did not complete in the enquiry within the extended time, but thereafter no prayer for extension of time was made and the enquiry continued for longer period. During pendency of enquiry, Chairman of the committee was changed. Two of its members abstained from participating in the enquiry and they did not sign the enquiry report. Final report signed by three men committee was submitted as report of five men committee. On the basis of this report, petitioners were either issued termination letters or simply they were restrained from discharging their duty. In some of the cases despite enquiry report, treated their service as illegal or forged, concerned Civil Surgeon treated them as genuinely appointed. In other cases, though petitioners earlier termination order had been quashed by the writ court they were not allowed to join, on account of pendency of appeal. The situation was that some of the persons who were though directed to be reinstated by the writ court, were not allowed to be reinstated. Some of the persons in the light of writ court 'sorder had been allowed to join, but after submission of the enquiry report, again they were removed from their service. In some of the cases enquiry committee did not come out with any finding or it was not communicated to the petitioners even then they were treated to be illegally appointed and removed from the service, or if earlier working were removed. Petitioners prayer in all these writ applications is for quashing the enquiry report submitted by five men committee and for a direction to reinstate them in their service, from which they were removed after 20 years, 18 years or more of their initial appointment.