UMESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.3.95 and 8.10.98 as contained in Annexures -5 and 6 to the writ application, whereby the salary of the petitioner was stopped and was discharged/removed from the service.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case inter alia is that he was appointed as Clerk in the vacant post lying in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, in terms of the appointment letter issued by Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Subsequently, services of the petitioner was said to have been confirmed and confirmation letter to that effect was issued on 8.4.1994 and petitioner was said to have received salary for one year and thereafter all of a sudden salary of the petitioner was stopped by the competent authority. Petitioner then filed representation for payment of salary, which was stopped since 1994 and ultimately filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1066 of 1996 (R). The said writ application was withdrawn by the petitioner and he again filed writ application being CWJC No. 2367 of 1997 (R). It is stated that after receiving notice of the writ application, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi, terminated the service of the petitioner by the impugned order without any rhyme or reason.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that the services of the petitioner was terminated after holding an inquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to file show -cause but the petitioner never filed any show -cause. The case of the respondent is that petitioner procured false and fabricated letter under the signature of Director in the name of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi and got himself appointed on the basis of forged appointment letter. Copy of the appointment letter annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ application, is alleged to be a forged and fabricated document. The respondent further denied allegation that services of the petitioner was confirmed. When the illegal and forged appointment of the petitioner came into the light his payment of salary was immediately stopped and F.I.R. was lodged on 24.8.95 against the petitioner. Since the date of lodging of F.I.R. petitioner was absconding in fear of his arrest. Petitioner was also given notice to show -cause but he did not filed his explanation. Consequently, services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of taking appointment on forged document.