IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5982 of 2009 SURAJMAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Health Servant cum Sweeper by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer on 2.4.1980. On record is the letter of appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-1. He was transferred from one place to another and was granted promotion as Family Welfare Worker in 1987. After he has discharged duty for about 22 years, a show cause notice was issued to him on 23.3.2002 by the Appointing Authority itself that his appointment letter had been found forged and fabricated. It is apparent from the show cause notice that the Respondents acted in formal compliance of the principle of natural justice after having already made up their mind ex parte that the appointment was illegal. The petitioner submitted his reply that his appointment was in accordance with law. On 16.4.2002 followed his order of termination. The submission is that while the impugned order refers to an examination by a Committee, the petitioner was never asked to appear before the Committee and neither was he given an opportunity to explain the same before the Committee. He, thus, came to this Court in CWJC No. 8467 of 2002 which came to be allowed by a common order reported in 2003(4) PLJR 282. In so 2 far as the issues of appointment of persons like the petitioner were concerned, even while setting aside the order, this Court granted liberty to the Respondents to hold an enquiry into the matter and proceed in accordance with law. This Court while granting liberty to the Respondents to hold enquiry, at paragraph 12 of the judgment observed as follows : “The State authorities, in this view of the matter, were wholly unjustified and unreasonable in re-opening the matter finding faults in the appointment of the petitioners after long lapse of time and this should not be the motto of the welfare State at this stage, which professes equality before law and right to livelihood, to act arbitrarily and unreasonably. On the contrary, it should be the foremost duty of the welfare State to protect the interest of its citizen and, in no way, it should act to jeopardize the interest of the public at large for the faults of their officials. In no case, it is pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that appropriate action has been taken against such authority, who made such appointments and allowed the appointees to continue in service for long. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the beneficiaries and the authorities, who conferred such benefits, are equally accountable for the irregular and invalid appointments and the appointments, if any, found to be invalid after lapse of a decade, such appointments, in my opinion, should be saved on equitable consideration.” 3 The State preferred L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 which was disposed as reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386. The Division Bench did not set aside the order of the writ Court, but, referred the matter to a Committee for examination for purposes of regularization in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. V. Uma Devi & ors, reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (S.C.) . Upon the same has followed the impugned order dated 25.8.2008 that appointment of the petitioner was forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon certain orders of this Court in CWJC No. 5572 of 2009, CWJC No. 4797 of 2009 and CWJC No. 4872 of 2009. He submits that this Court has held that such an enquiry by the authorities, ex parte in nature, having direct impact on the appointment of the petitioner, is not sustainable. Strong reliance is placed on the order dated 18.8.2005 in CWJC No. 4872 of 2009 that this Court has directed that if the order of the writ Court merged with the order of the Division Bench then in any enquiry with regard to the appointment of the petitioner, directions given in paragraph 12 of the order of the writ Court, as quoted above, had equally to be complied with and the Respondents could not be permitted to proceed in a manner of their choice to invalidate the appointment of the petitioner after such a long duration of service even while seeking to protect their own Officer. If the petitioner has to go, those 4 Officers must go also. This Court does not find any different view with regard to the case of the petitioner. The order of termination dated 25.8.2008 is not sustainable. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)