AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Madhupur Municipality.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 21/5/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4214/2009, whereby and where under the challenge mounted by the writ petitioner/appellant to his order of dismissal from service has been rejected.

(3.) The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner had applied for the post of Tax Collector in Madhupur Municipality consequent to an advertisement issued in that respect and being successful the writ petitioner was appointed to the said post vide order no. 369/1-2 dtd. 31/7/1979. However, after serving for more than two years, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service without any notice and without any opportunity of hearing but the said decision of the Municipal Board was declared ab-initio void by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide letter no. 2853 dtd. 3/12/1981 and he was allowed to continue in his service. The writ petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Daroga vide memo no. 591/1-2 dtd. 6/1/1990 issued by the Executive Officer, Madhupur Municipality, Madhupur. The writ petitioner was thereafter suspended in contemplation of a departmental inquiry vide memo no. 524 dtd. 10/9/1996. In the meantime, the respondent no. 9 to the writ application, who was also an aspirant to the post in which the petitioner was appointed, had filed a suit for a declaration that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and void which, however, was dismissed on 22/9/1998. A departmental proceeding was started against the writ Petitioner on the charge that he had obtained service by submitting forged document and due to this the private respondent no.9 was deprived from securing the job in spite of having better credentials than the writ petitioner. Since the departmental proceeding did not conclude, the writ petitioner had moved this court in CWJC No. 1326/01 and the same was disposed of on 6/4/2001 with the following directions :-