IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11196 of 2007 RAM PRAVESH SINGH Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.11526 of 2007 SATYENDRA KUMAR Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.11777 of 2007 JWALA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.13620 of 2007 VIJAY CHANDRA LAL KARN Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.15351 of 2007 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.16950 of 2007 MRITYUNJAY PRASAD SINGH Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.&OR ----------- CWJC No.1606 of 2008 SHYAM BIHARI LAL Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.3524 of 2008 SHAILESH KUMAR Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVP.AUT ----------- CWJC No.4347 of 2008 SHASHI KUMAR - 2 - Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.8412 of 2008 MD.ZEYAUR REHMAN Versus BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPM ----------- CWJC No.15012 of 2008 MD. WASINDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR& ORS ----------- CWJC No.12323 of 2007 AMMINI AMMA B. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7 5.5.2009 In this batch of writ applications, the original records of the respondent authority had been called for by this Court to examine the legality and correctness of the manner in which the authority has proceeded for issuance of the termination orders/compulsory retirement, as the case may be. When the hearing commenced and original records came under scrutiny it was revealed that in the departmental proceedings prior to the issuance of the impugned orders, no Presenting Officer was appointed, no prosecution evidence, oral or documentary was led with opportunity for cross examination, and no dates for holding of the enquiry with intimation was done. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents very fairly - 3 - stated that he finds it difficult to support the impugned orders in their present form and the manner in which the decision had been taken. He however urged that the respondents retain the liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if they so desire. This Court is only concerned with the fair stand of the Authority, that it finds it difficult to sustain the orders in their present form. The issue is of infirmity in the decision making process. What the authority may do or may not do subsequently is for the authority to decide and not for this Court to dwell upon or observe at this stage. This Court expects that the fairness shown by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority before this Court shall be reciprocated in such matters stated to be pending before the appellate authority, an executive Officer and for which reason the writ petitions were disposed to pursue the matters before the Appellate authority.. This Court expects that the Officer of the respondent authority shall not take a different and varying stand. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders in each of the writ applications whether of termination or compulsory retirement stand set aside, and the petitioners reinstated. - 4 - The writ applications are allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next presses for backwages. In so far as the issue of back wages is concerned, this Court considers it proper to record its own order dated 16.4.2009 in CWJC No. 8427 of 2008 in the penultimate paragraph and which shall be accordingly incorporated hereinafter also to read as follows:- “Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a claim for back wages. In view of the recent judicial pronouncements on the issue of back wages, and the nature of the present order passed, this Court observes that if the petitioner prefers an application for back wages, the authorities are required to decide the same in accordance with the settled principles for grant of back wages, by a reasoned and speaking order after due opportunity to the petitioner within a maximum period of eights weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” The Authority in that event is expected to proceed in accordance with the guidelines suggested in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.(2009(3) SCC 124). (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar