Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1195 (PAT)

Subhash Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2011-06-27

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioners prayer is for quashing of the Order, contained in Memo No. 2895, dated 7.11.2008 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner Subhash Prasad has been removed from his service. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction for his reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed initially by the Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj against the sanctioned vacant post in the pay-scale of Rs. 825-1,200/- on temporary basis, vide order, contained in Memo No. 1838, dated 13.12.1989. Petitioner gave his joining, and it was accepted. Subsequently, he was also sent for training. In the year 2001, the then Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj restrained the petitioner from discharging his duties and show-cause notice was issued, asking him to show the legality of his appointment. This order was challenged by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8852 of 2001. The Writ Application was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. As directed in the Writ Application, the petitioner gave his joining, which was accepted and again he started working on the post. However, the hassales of the petitioner did not come to an end. The Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj, again vide Memo No. 50(C), dated 11.2.2003, issued another show-cause to the petitioner. Despite submission of show- cause by the petitioner, he was terminated vide order, dated 26.2.2003. This order was also challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 2003, which was allowed vide another Order dated 8.9.2003, whereby several cases were disposed of. The termination order was quashed. However, the Respondents had liberty to make enquiry with regard to such appointments, which were forged and illegal. So far irregular appointments were concerned, there was a direction to consider for its regularization. Several LPAs were preferred by the State against orders passed in similar Writ Application. All these appeals were heard analogous and a direction was issued to the State Government for constituting a Committee of Five-Men, which will examine each case individually after giving opportunity to employees, and will consider their case in the light of Apex Courts decision (State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi). 4. Petitioners grievance is that the Committee constituted in the light of High Courts order, in fact, did not enquire into the matter, as per the direction of the Court. 4. Petitioners grievance is that the Committee constituted in the light of High Courts order, in fact, did not enquire into the matter, as per the direction of the Court. No opportunity was given to the petitioner for submission of his case before the Committee and without any reason his appointment was considered as fake. 5. Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that in the similar circumstance, several Writ Applications were filed and by a common Order, passed in analogous cases, the report submitted by the Five-Men Committee has been quashed. His case is identical to the case of the petitioner, whose Writ Applications were decided by the analogous judgment. 6. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that removal of the petitioner is justified, as the High-level Committee after examining his case has found his appointment forge. 7. In the case of the petitioner, there was no such allegation regarding forgery or fake appointment. Initially, it was said to be irregular and now the same appointment has been treated as forged, that also without giving any proper opportunity to defend himself before the Committee. 8. For all these reasons, I find that the Respondents have completely acted against the direction of the High Court in the LPAs preferred by the State as well as Writ Applications and have held the petitioners appointment as a fake appointment. He has not even provided with an opportunity to defend his case. In this view of the matter, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2895, dated 7.11.2008 is completely illegal and arbitrary. An employee, who was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post, continued on the post, confirmed on the post, could not have been dismissed after such a long time on the ground that it was a fake appointment. The impugned order is quashed. This application is allowed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with the date of his termination.