Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 20 (PAT)

Yogendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2006-01-04

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against order dated 1.7.2004, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, he was appointed on Class III post under the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj in the year 1990 pursuant to an advertisement issued by the authorities. The petitioner worked althrough and now by the impugned order, he has been terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several posts were advertised and the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement applied for appointment on Class III post and he was, ultimately, interviewed and he was selected and appointment letter was issued vide letter dated 18.1.1990. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner and some other persons similarly situated, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5535 of 2001 for quashing of order dated 15.3.2001, issued vide memo no. 215(4}/ Health, Patna, whereby and whereundedirections were issued to stop payment of salary to the petitioner and others. This Court vide order dated 29.6.2001 stayed the operation of the order impugned, but, in the meantime, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and by the order impugned he was terminated. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5535 of 2001, the petitioner could not have been terminated and in case, exigency would have arisen for taking action against the petitioner a full-fledged inquiry could have been held. But, in the case at hand, no inquiry, whatsoever, was held against the petitioner and after giving opportunity to show-cause he was terminated. 7. It is not in dispute that C.W.J.C. 5535 of 2001 is still sub-judice before this Court and interim order passed in that case is still continuing. It is also not in dispute that no inquiry, whatsoever, was held in the matter save and except issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner. It appears to be an admitted fact that other writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 5535 of 2001 are still continuing in services except this petitioner, who has been terminated. 8. JC to SC 3, however, submits that the appointment of the petitioner was found to be invalid and the matter was enquired into at the Departmental level and, thus, the petitioner was terminated. 8. JC to SC 3, however, submits that the appointment of the petitioner was found to be invalid and the matter was enquired into at the Departmental level and, thus, the petitioner was terminated. No explanation, however, has been given in the counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the persons appointed alongwith the petitioner were retained. 9. It would be worth noticing that in C.W.J.C. No. 5535 of 2001 altogether four persons including the petitioners had approached this Court challenging the order issued by the authorities and the petitioner appears to be similarly situated to other persons of that writ application and interim order passed by this Court operated, so far (he writ petitioners of that case were concerned. The petitioner, in that view of the matter, could not have been made an exception and in no way, he could have been terminated without holding a proper inquiry. 10. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner continued in services for about 14 years and now he has been terminated treating him as an exception. 11. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned, so far the petitioner is concerned, is not sustainable. 12. This application is, accordingly, allowed, order impugned concerning the petitioner is set aside and he is directed to be reinstated.