MEGHRAJ PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17.4.1993, as contained in Annexure -8, by which respondent no. 2, the General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the said Board), Patna has dismissed the petitioner from the post of Chowkidar.

(2.) THE facts of the case shortly put are that the petitioner's father Ram Lakhan Prasad, an un -skilled Khalasi of the Electric Supply Division, Nawadah died in harness and the petitioner being the youngest son of his father was appointed as a Chowkidar by letter dated 10.8.1991. It is not in dispute that the said deceased Ram Lakhan Prasad had three sons, out of whom one is the petitioner and other two are Naresh Prasad and Mundrika Prasad (respondent no. 6). Out of the three sons, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter he was called for an interview and thereafter was appointed. After the petitioner was appointed, one of the elder brother Mundrika Prasad (respondent no.6) filed a writ petition for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. The said writ petition was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 6357 of 1991 and in the said writ petition this Court noted the grievances of respondent no. 6 who filed the same and gave certain directions. It appears from the order dated 3.10.1991 by which the said writ petition was dispossed of that the grievance of respondent no. 6 was that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment because of his age since he was of 15 years of age at the time of his appointment. The further grievance of respondent no. 6 was that in terms of the policy decision such dependent of the deceased employee can be appointed who is above 18 years of age. In view of the aforesaid complaint, a learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions ; - "In view of the controversy aforesaid, it is not possible to make any positive order in this case. We, accordingly, dispose of this application with a direction to the respondent Board to consider the question as to whether Meghraj Prasad was eligible for appointment or not. If it is found after enquiry that he was not eligible for appointment, the case of the petitioners should be considered for such appointment. We may also observe that if ultimately as a result of the aforesaid enquiry, the appointment of Meghraj Prasad has to be terminated, an opportunity of hearing must be given to him. On the other hand, if the Board ultimately come to the conclusion that Maghraj Prasad was eligible for appointment, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. The enquiry must be concluded within a reasonable time.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction of the Division Bench of this Court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner gave his reply and thereafter a personal hearing was given. The petitioner also attended the personal hearing. In the reply to the show cause which was given by the petitioner, the petitioner's stand was that so far as his age was concerned, there had been mis -statement by him and about the school leaving certificate which was appended by his elder brother, the petitioner was not aware of the same. The petitioner asserted that he was given the appointment after he became major. When this enquiry was pending, respondent no. 2 asked the Civil Surgeon, Patna to determine the age of the petitioner by ossification test by letter dated 15.1.1993. When the matter was thus pending consideration, respondent no. 6 filed another writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 2474 of 1992. The said writ petition contained the similar prayer for quashing the appointment of the writ petitioner and the said writ petition was also disposed of by an order dated 7.9.1992. The said order dated 7.9.1992 is set out below : - "The petitioner had earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6357. of 1991 which was disposed of on 3.10.1991 with an observation that the authorities concerned should hold enquiry into the matter and pass final orders. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board in which it has been stated that enquiry has been completed. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this application with a direction to the respondents ¢ concerned to pass final order on the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."