RAM PRAVESH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge, in this writ application, is to the impugned notice dated-21.06.2010 (Annexure-8), whereby the petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation as to why a proceeding should not be initiated against him on the charge that he had obtained his appointment on the basis of a forged letter of appointment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistant way back in 1988 but some years later, on the basis of some complaint, alleging that the petitioner's appointment was illegal, an enquiry was conducted by the concerned authorities of the Respondents and after completing the enquiry, the conclusion drawn by the authorities was that the appointment of the petitioner did not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure-1. Learned counsel adds that again a few years later, upon receiving similar nature of allegations, a fresh enquiry was again conducted by the authorities concerned and this time too, they had arrived at the same conclusion that the petitioner's appointment did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure-6.

(3.) The present grievance of the petitioner is that although the entire controversy has been closed long ago but after more than ten years, on the basis of a anonymous allegation petition, the matter is sought to be raked up again by the concerned authorities, who in the impugned notice, have already concluded that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged and the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and have virtually decided to terminate the services of the petitioner and the present notice is only an eye-wash by way of a purported compliance of the Rules of procedure.