SUDHIR KUMAR MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the service of an employee, after 20 year of service, can be terminated without a showcause notice and without holding a departmental enquiry, are the issues calling for determination by the Court in the present proceeding.

(2.) The case pleaded by the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as "petitioner") is that, pursuant to a notice he submitted his application for appointment on a Class IV post whereafter, the interview letter dated 04.08.1990 was issued to him. The petitioner appeared in the office of the District Education Officer, Palamau on 13.08.1990 and submitted his educational and other certificates. Thereafter, he was interviewed by the District Education Establishment Committee, Palamau which selected him for appointment on a Class IV post in Project Girls High School. An appointment letter was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 03.09.1999 which discloses that he was appointed in Project Girls High School, Bhandaria in payscale of Rs. 77512955141025. The petitioner gave his joining in the said school on 05.09.1990. He was transferred to another school on 08.07.1993 where he gave his joining on 22.07.1993. It is stated that the petitioner was granted increment w.e.f. 05.09.1993 and his pay was fixed @ Rs. 811. The petitioner's pay was revised in the scale of Rs. 2550552660603200 and his pay was fixed @ Rs. 2605 effective from 01.01.1996. On 6th Pay Revision coming into force in the State of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 28.02.2009, the petitioner's pay was revised in the payscale of Rs. 44407440 in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1300 and the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed @ Rs. 6810 as on 01.01.2006. More than 10 years after his appointment, a showcause notice dated 23.01.2001 was issued to the petitioner stating that on enquiry his appointment has been found irregular. In response to the said showcause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and the Headmaster of the school also sent appointment letter and servicebook of the petitioner to the District Education Officer. Now, 10 years thereafter, the service of the petitioner was terminated vide office order dated 13.04.2010, aggrieve thereof, the petitioner approached the Writ Court however, unsuccessfully.

(3.) Heard.