ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.04 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi whereby he has been asked to explain as to why he be not terminated from the services.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Constable on temporary basis. His appointment was regularized by Nawada District Order No. 1260 dated 1.10.1990 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nawada. The petitioner was then sent for training to the Police Centre, especially in traffic and vehicle control. Thereafter, he passed the training in first class vide order dated 15.4.1993 of the Principal, Traffic and Motor Vehicle Training School, Jamshedpur. The petitioner was transferred to Ranchi Police. While serving in the Police Centre, Ranchi, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 19.2.02 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nawada asking the petitioner to explain as to why he be not terminated from the service. The petitioner had challenged the said notice before this Court in W.P(S) No. 1593/2002. After hearing the parties, this Court had quashed the said notice by order dated 8.3.2002. Even after quashing the said notice, a fresh show cause notice dated 8.7.04 has been issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his appointment be not terminated (Annexure -3). It has been submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal. The petitioner has been appointed by the then existing State of Bihar and subsequently he was transferred and posted at Ranchi. His services cannot be terminated by the State of Jharkhand in view of the clear provision of Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The petitioner has been working for more than a decade. After his appointment and approval of the same, his initial appointment cannot be now challenged by the respondents. There is no legal justification to issue the impugned show cause and the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. By the impugned notice/order, the respondents have sought to assail the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 1990. The petitioner's appointment is said to be illegal. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been holding a permanent post. He has been allowed to continue in service since 1990 i.e. for about more than 17 years. From the impugned notice, it is evident that the petitioner's appointment has been made contrary to the legal procedures and provisions. The respondent No. 3 has arrived at the said conclusion without initiation of any proceeding or serving any memorandum of charge or holding any enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedures. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India specifically envisages that a Government employee cannot be dismissed or removed from service, except after enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The impugned notice has been issued communicating the said conclusion and the punishment without holding any enquiry in accordance with the said mandatory provision of the Constitution. The said notice is, thus, wholly illegal, invalid and violative of the principles of natural justice.