STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. RADHEY SHYAM PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2004 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5705 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order as contained in Memo dated 8.9.2003 by which the salary of the respondent was stopped and also the order dated 9.2.2004 by which the services of the respondent was terminate on the ground that his appointment was found to be forged and illegal.

(2.) THE case of the respondent, inter cilia, was that he along with others was duly appointed against sanctioned and vacant Class -III post in the year 1984 vide Memo dated 15.12.1984 issued by the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi. The respondent was, thereafter, sent for training from time to time and thereafter by order dated 5.8.1988 he was transferred to Pakuria in Sahibganj district. Two years thereafter on 2.3.1990, the respondent was informed that his appointment made in the year 1984 was illegal. Consequently, the respondent was directed to produce necessary papers on 16.4.1990 in the office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahibganj. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the respondent appeared on 16.4.1990 and 14.8.1990 and produced all the documents. Four years thereafter in 1995, a decision was taken to conduct inquiry into the alleged illegal appointment and a list was prepared asking the persons to file their respective explanation. According to the respondent, his name was not included in that list. Consequently, the respondent continued working since 1984. But after 12 years, the respondent was again asked on 11.5.1996 to submit his letter of appointment in the district headquarters for the purpose of inquiry. The respondent said to have submitted all required documents showing that he was validly appointed. Thereafter on 4.9.1996, the authorities of the appellant issued a direction in relation to payment of salary to the respondent since the appointment of the respondent was found to be genuine. Curiously enough, after lapse of 8 months, the respondent again received a Memo dated 9.5.1997 by which he along with others was again asked to submit letter of appointment for the purpose of conducting inquiry. The respondent said to have again submitted the documents and as per the direction, he appeared in person before the authorities on 5.11.1998. Again in 1999, a list of 61 illegally appointed persons was published, but the name of the respondent was not included in that list also. Notwithstanding that, the respondent was again directed to appear and produce documents. Being so much harassed, he filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3223 of 2001 which was disposed of on 24.7.2001 by this Court remanding the matter to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Paraganas Division directing him to determine as to whether they would to make an inquiry relating to legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent. It was further directed to conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they were prohibited from making further inquiry with respect to the legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent made 16 1/2 years ago.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge alter considering the affidavit and after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition holding that in the earlier order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3223 of 2001 a specific direction was issued to determine as to whether the appellant would like to hold an inquiry and if so, they shall conclude the inquiry within six months failing which the appellant was prohibited from making any further inquiry with respect to legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent -writ petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid order, the appellant conducted the inquiry much beyond the aforesaid time -limit and without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent, passed order terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that his letter of appointment appears to be forged. The said impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.