LAWS(JHAR)-2014-12-37

AJIT KUMAR MISTRY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On December 19, 2014
Ajit Kumar Mistry Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-15), by which he has been terminated from service, has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had got himself registered in the Employment Exchange on 1.6.1987. The name of the petitioner was called for by a Panel presided over by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the petitioner was working during the relevant time as Voluntary Worker in the Department of Health, Dumka, he had made an application for his appointment on Class-IV post. The case of the petitioner was considered and he was appointed against a vacant sanctioned post vide Memo No. 526 dated 2.3.1989. The petitioner immediately gave his joining and started discharging his duty. A show cause notice was issued to him on 14.9.1994 by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna and he was directed to submit the documents proving legality and propriety of his appointment. The petitioner had filed a detailed show cause reply with all documents proving legality and propriety of his appointment on 17.10.1994. By virtue of the orders passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Health services, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, the petitioner along with others had been posted, subject to outcome of the enquiry to be done with respect to appointment of the petitioner. Another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 1999. The petitioner again filed reply to the same immediately. After finding the appointment of the petitioner to be valid and legal, the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka had issued Memo No. 129 dated 29.3.2000 adjusting the service of the petitioner as Male Family Planning Worker from the date of his joining. Thereafter, vide Letter No. 227 dated 26.5.2000, the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargna Division, Dumka had informed the In-Charge, Medical Officer, Karon that the service of the petitioner has been approved. The petitioner had been given the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. The petitioner was continuously discharging his duty to the satisfaction of all superiors. Suddenly he received a copy of Memo No. 308 dated 26.8.2002, issued under the signature of the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karon, informing him that his salary w.e.f. August 2002 will be kept in abeyance, as he has not submitted his original appointment letter. The petitioner immediately submitted his appointment letter before the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karon, but his payment was not released. In the meantime, he was promoted to the post of Vaccinator. When the salary of the petitioner was not paid, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 assailing the order contained in Memo No. 308 dated 26.8.2002 and for payment of arrears of salary was filed before this Court. In W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003, a direction had been given to the authority concerned to conduct an enquiry with respect to legality and propriety of the petitioner's appointment and in the mean time, to pay salary to the petitioner including the back wages. When the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 was not complied with, a contempt case had also been filed. During pendency of the contempt case, the enquiry report was submitted, wherein it was found that the petitioner had been illegally appointed. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed terminating the petitioner from service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when this Court had directed to conduct a thorough enquiry and conclude the same within three months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in course of enquiry, merely on the basis of a show cause notice, the petitioner was removed from service. Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, certain allegation of misconduct has also been made. Hence, before passing the impugned order, it was necessary to initiate a regular departmental proceeding, as has been intended in the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003. However, since the petitioner was discharging his duty since 1989, merely on the basis of a show cause notice and without providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, he cannot be removed from service. Thus, the impugned order of termination has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice.