Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 97 (PAT)

Sri. Govind Kr. Singh v. State

2005-02-01

V.N.SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has assailed the office order bearing memo No. 49 dated 25.2.1997, annexure-1, whereunder he alongwith other three has been terminated from the post of assistant. Perusal of the said order indicates that the same has been passed after considering the show cause reply of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the said order on the ground that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order itself ever indicated any grounds on the basis of which the services of the petitioner was earlier proposed to be terminated and thereafter was terminated. He further submitted that one of the four persons whose services was also terminated alongwith the petitioner, namely, Parmanand Kishore assailed the aforesaid office order, annexure-1, by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9078/1997 and this court under order dated 2.8.1999 set aside the impugned termination order, annexure-1 so far it relates to Parmanand Kishore on the ground that Parmanand Kishore was appointed without playing any fraud and he having served for about 11 years should not have been terminated. Further submission is that the aforesaid order dated 2.8.1999 has since been affirmed by this court under order dated 10.7.2001 passed in L.P.A. No. 167/2000 as during the hearing of the L.P.A. it was brought to the notice of the court that one Manju Yadav who was appointed in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna in 1995 through back door method was allowed to continue with her appointment whereas petitioner of the said C.W.J.C. No. 9078/1997/respondent of L.P.A. No. 167/2000 who was serving the office of the Directorate since 1991 for about 11 years was terminated. Placing strong reliance on the aforesaid two orders learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar order in the case of this petitioner should also be passed as services of the petitioner has also been terminated under the same impugned order dated 25.2.1997, annexure-1, which has already been quashed in C.W.J.C. No. 9078/1997 as regards petitioner of that case. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that it is true that the petitioner of the present case has also been terminated from service under office order dated 25.2.1997 which has already been set aside in the aforesaid writ case but in the case of the present petitioner facts are little different as present petitioner was appointed through back door method and continued in service for only about six years and was terminated under the impugned order, as such, the impugned order may be set aside but with liberty to the State-respondents to issue notice to the petitioner indicating the illegalities committed in his appointment and to pass fresh orders on the basis of the show cause filed by the petitioner. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as liberty was not granted by this court under orders dated 2.8.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9078/1997 and 10.7.2001 passed in L.P.A. No. 167/2000 no liberty should be allowed to the State-respondents to proceed against the petitioner of the present case also he has served the Directorate of Secondary Education for about six years this court should follow the order dated 10.7.2001 passed in L.P.A. No. 167/2000. 5. It is obvious that the Division Bench of this court under order dated 10.7.2001 passed in L.P.A. No. 167/2000 did not grant liberty to the State-respondents to proceed against illegal appointee as Manju Yadav who was appointed in 1995 through back door method was allowed to continue in the office of the Directorate even after Division Bench of this court under order dated 27.6.2001 allowed the State-respondents to explain the circumstances in which Manju Yadav was allowed to continue and this court appreciating the discriminatory approach of the respondent authorities did not grant liberty to the State-respondents to proceed against the petitioner of the said case. 6. Considering the fact that petitioner had continued only for about six years, the office order dated 25.2.1997, annexure-1, is, set aside as regards the petitioner herein with direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages, however, with liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the authorities decide to proceed against the petitioner they should also proceed against Manju Yadav who has been appointed through back door method in 1995 after the petitioner. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. It goes without saying that if the authorities decide to proceed against the petitioner they should also proceed against Manju Yadav who has been appointed through back door method in 1995 after the petitioner. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. No cost.