Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 508 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Dhananjay Kumar

2008-03-17

BARIN GHOSH, C.M.PRASAD

body2008
Judgment 1. On 5th October, 1987, private respondent was appointed. Since then he was paid salaries. On 24.12.2002, an order was passed which was followed by yet another order dated 21.5.2003, whereby and under it was decided not to pay salaries to the private respondent. 2. In the order dated 24.12.2002 it was indicated that the private respondent was asked twice to produce documents but he failed to produce the same. It was stated that on internal enquiry, it was found that the writ petitioners appointment is not sustainable and, accordingly, it has been decided not to pay salaries to the private respondent. 3. Challenging the said decision, the private respondent filed a Writ Petition which was registered as CWJC No. 7909 of 2003. By the judgment and order under appeal, the said Writ Petition was allowed and the orders dated 24.12.2002 and 21.5.2003 were quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the writ petitioner relied upon a forged appointment letter while he came to be appointed. It was submitted that in the rejoinder filed in the present appeal, the appellants have brought on record the appointment letter, on the strength of which the private respondent obtained appointment, and the appointment letter which was intended to be issued to the true appointee, and it was submitted that despite obtaining an opportunity to deal with the rejoinder, the private respondent has failed to do so and thereby has not denied the assertions made in the rejoinder. 5. The fact remains that when the private respondent was twice asked to produce documents, he was not told the purpose thereof. The order dated 24.12.2002 followed by the order dated 21.5.2003 do not suggest that even up to that stage the private respondent was told that he secured the appointment on the strength of a forged appointment letter or that the appointment letter on the basis whereof he sought appointment was a forged appointment letter. The fact remains that these facts were also not brought on i record before the Writ Court, inasmuch as no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants. These facts were also not brought on record at the time when the Letters Patent Appeal was filed. Subsequent thereto the appellants purported to file a rejoinder affidavit, when without permission of the Court, these assertions were sought to be brought on record. 6. These facts were also not brought on record at the time when the Letters Patent Appeal was filed. Subsequent thereto the appellants purported to file a rejoinder affidavit, when without permission of the Court, these assertions were sought to be brought on record. 6. It is well settled in law that no new facts or evidence can be brought on record of an appeal without leave of the Court. There is no just reason for not bringing those assertions on the record of the Writ Court or even when the present appeal was filed. Far less even up to now there is no prayer to bring the same on record of the appeal. 7. Be that as it may, subsequent to the order on the Writ Petition of the private respondent was passed, by yet another order dated 12.11.2003 the very appointment of the private respondent was sought to be interfered with" when it was alleged that the appointment letter on the strength of which the private respondent obtained the appointment was a forged and fabricated appointment letter. This order dated 12.11.2003 has been quashed in a separate writ petition, registered as CWJC No. 1828 of 2007, by a judgment and order of this Court dated 9.4.2007. The reason for quashing the said order dated 12.11.2003 is non-furnishing of any prior information to the private respondent of the constituent facts on the basis whereof the appointment of the private respondent was sought to be terminated. The respondents were permitted to proceed against the private respondent after following the principles of natural justice. It has not been brought on record that since after 9.4.2007 any step has been taken to proceed against the private respondent after following the principles of natural justice. 8. In the circumstances not having told the private respondent before his salary was stopped that it is being suspected, after lapse of 15 years from the date of appointment of the private respondent, that the appointment letter on the basis of which the private respondent was appointed is a forged appointment letter, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and, accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.