Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 250 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Umesh Chandra Prasad

2007-02-05

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard J.C. to AAG-V in support of the appeal and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order, dated 23.1.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge by which the writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 10174/ 1998, filed by the sole respondent was substantially allowed and the order terminating his service was set aside. 3. The sole respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging an order issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Central Region, Patna under his Memo No. 1252 dated 28.7.1998 by which the service of the respondent was terminated with effect from that date on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Class IV employee by an order of the Regional Director issued under Memo No. 818, dated 31.3.1991. He joined the post on 1.11.1991 and since then he was working till he was removed from service by the impugned order, without assigning any reason. 4. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit was filed in which it was stated that the appointment of the respondent was made in a completely irregular way without issuing any advertisement or holding a process of selection. It was further stated that the appointment was made in violation of the circular dated 28.10.1991 putting a restriction on any appointments. It was further pointed out that in the appointment order produced by the petitioner (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) it was stated that he was appointed on a purely temporary basis. Moreover, it was stated that the memo number as indicated in the appointment order appeared to be doubtful and suspicious. 5. The learned Single Judge observed that though the respondent joined the post on 1.11.1991, the appointment letter was issued prior to cut-off date of 28.10.1991. The appointment would, therefore, remain unaffected by the circular issued later. The Writ Court did not make any observation with regard to the appointment letter being of a doubtful or suspicious nature. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order of termination of service was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service though without the back wages. 6. The Writ Court did not make any observation with regard to the appointment letter being of a doubtful or suspicious nature. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order of termination of service was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service though without the back wages. 6. On hearing the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the intervention of the Court was quite justified in setting aside the order of termination as it was issued without any proper enquiry or a consideration of the explanation given by the petitioner. However, we have certain reservation with regard to the order of the Court directing the petitioners reinstatement closing the doors for any further inquiry in the matter. We are worried by the stand taken by the respondent authorities that the appointment letter appeared to be doubtful and suspicious. In this regard we may note that in course of hearing of the appeal the State counsel submitted that on further verification it was found that the letter with Memo No. 813 was in fact issued to someone at Nalanda and it was not an appointment letter for Rohtas. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proper order that recommends to us is to remit the matter to the Director, Animal Husbandry, to examine all the relevant materials and to pass a fresh order after giving a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the sole respondent. The question of reinstatement of the respondent shall abide by the final order that may be passed in the case. It is expected that the Director shall pass a final order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in his office. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Prahlad Kumar Bhagat, J.C. to AAG-V.