Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 224 (JHR)

Gopal Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-03-18

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 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 petitioners 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. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, contesting the writ application and stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief prayed for in the writ application as the initial appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the prescribed Rules/procedure and that of the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution. However, it has been stated in paragraph No. 7(ii)(a) of the counter\affidavit that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Water Resources Department, Patna had power to issue appointment letter for the post of Grade-III and IV of the Establishment against the sanctioned post in accordance with the guidelines and principles laid down by letter No. 53, dated 18.2.1978. Subsequently the said letter was modified by letter No. 7836, dated 2.12.1983 whereby the approval of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation was made necessary. Subsequently the said letter was modified by letter No. 7836, dated 2.12.1983 whereby the approval of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation was made necessary. It was stated that the petitioner was provisionally appointed on temporary basis on the post of "Chain Man" by the Special Land acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Aurangabad on the condition that his services may be terminated without any notice. It was further stated that in appointing the petitioner, back door method was adopted. On the said allegation, an enquiry was set up by the Water Resources Department against the petitioner wherein his appointment was held to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 4. 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 petitioners services 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 petitioners services has been passed on different grounds by Annexure-12. 5. As already noticed the respondents have admitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had power of appointment for the post of Grade IV and III against the sanctioned post in the establishment in accordance with the guidelines vide letter No. 53, dated 18.2.1978. In view of the said statement made in the counter-affidavit, the main ground on the basis of which the petitioners appointment was sought to be held invalid, has no foundation. In view of the said statement made in the counter-affidavit, the main ground on the basis of which the petitioners appointment was sought to be held invalid, has no foundation. From subsequent conduct of the authorities also it cannot be said that the petitioners appointment was a back door appointment and was without any authority and it was not approved by the Director. The Director who was admittedly, the competent authority, had subsequently examined the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated persons and had issued order of promotion by Annexure-2, by his Memo No. 18, dated 6.1.1989 as contained in Annexure-2. The respondents have not denied the said fact of issuing the said order Annexure-2 by the Director. The ground that the petitioners appointment had no approval of the Director thus is also falsified by the said Annexure-2 as the order of promotion to the petitioner could not have been issued under that circumstance, had it been an unauthorized appointment. So far as temporary nature of the post is concerned, it is an admitted case that the petitioner was allowed to work for long 21 years on the said post. On that basis, it cannot be safely inferred that the post was not temporary or the same was an unsanctioned post. Considering the above discussion I do not find any legal basis for issuing the impugned termination order, Annexure-12. The same is thus wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust and cannot be allowed to sustain. In the result the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 997, dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure-12) is thus quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in his service without any break. Since the petitioner was kept out of service illegally and arbitrarily, the petitioner is entitled to get his full salary of the intervening period i.e. from the date of his termination by Annexure-12 till the date of his reinstatement. 6. The writ petition is thus allowed, but without any cost.