GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government State of Jharkhand by his Memo No. 997, dated 1.4.2004 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service after about 21 years of his appointment on the ground that the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as "Janjir Vahak" vide letter of appointment dated 16.9.1983 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Aurangabad as contained in Annexure -1. By an order issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department, Government of Bihar by his Memo No. 18, dated 6.1.1989, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of "Mapak" (Amin) along with several other persons. The petitioner 's name appeared at Sl. No. 38 of the said order. Suddenly by letter No. 14(2) Estt. Dated 13.2.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government Department of Water Resources, a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him as to under what authority, Special Land Acquisition Officer had issued his initial appointment letter. The petitioner submitted his reply explaining the authority and other circumstances, but the same held to be not satisfactory and the said order of punishment was passed, terminating the petitioner from his service vide order dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure -12).

(3.) FROM perusal of Annexure -3, the show -cause issued to the petitioner alleging his appointment to be illegal on the grounds : (1) the appointment letter was issued by the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Aurangabad, was purely temporary (ii) The said Special Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to issue appointment letter and thus the same was issued without jurisdiction and (iii) The procedures of appointment were not followed. By Annexure -12, the petitioner 'sservices has been terminated on the ground that the reply to the show -cause filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory and though the obtained appointment in collusion with the officials without following prescribed procedure his appointment was made when there was restriction on making such appointment and in similar circumstance the High Court has held that the appointments made contrary to the established procedure is illegal. It is thus evident that the main cause on the basis of which the notice was issued to the petitioner by Annexure -3 was shown to be the lack of authority and power of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in issuing appointment letter to the petitioner but the order of termination of the petitioner 'sservices has been passed on different grounds by Annexure -12.