IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6894 of 2004 Md. Quaiyum, son of Laqte Md.Siddique, resident of village Kamman Chapra, P.O., P.S. and District- Vaishali …………. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Commissioner and Secretary, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3.Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4.Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 5.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur 6.Additional Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur 7.District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 8.Zila Pratirakshak-cum-R.C.H. Padadhikari, Muzaffarpur ………… Respondents ----------- 5. 29/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of his termination dated 6.5.2004, as contained in Annexure-3, passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. The order shows that after perusing the documents produced by the petitioner and appearing from the records, it was found that petitioner’s appointment was illegal on five counts, i.e. no advertisement was published; Selection Committee was not constituted; petitioner was appointed through confidential letter; reservation point was not fixed and roster clearance was not obtained. - 2 - It has been pleaded in paragraph 23 of the writ application that petitioner was asked to furnish relevant documents in respect of his appointment which he submitted to the Civil Surgeon. Thereafter, it has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 30 of the writ application that petitioner was never asked any show cause and was not given any opportunity of hearing prior to the order of his termination. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Civil Surgeon, it is stated that show cause notice was served on the petitioner and after consideration of his show cause, his services were terminated. The impugned order does not reflect the stand taken in the counter affidavit. From the impugned order it appears that the documents submitted by the petitioner were only examined and conclusion was arrived at that his appointment was illegal and therefore his services were terminated. Asking for documents in respect of appointment of an incumbent is one thing and asking show cause as to why his services should not be terminated is another thing. The Principles of Natural Justice - 3 - requires that before taking any penal action or passing any adverse order against any incumbent, a show cause notice must be issued to him to show cause as to why proposed action be not taken against him. This apparently has not been done in this case. In the circumstances, solely on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, this writ application is allowed and Annexure-3 is quashed. However, respondents are given liberty to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after giving him due opportunity to show cause in respect of illegality found in his appointment and pass fresh orders thereafter. The grounds mentioned in Annexure-3 for holding appointment of petitioner illegal shall be considered by the petitioner as grounds for show cause and he may file show cause in respect of all the five grounds mentioned therein before the concerned authority within three weeks from today. The concerned authority shall take up and complete the entire process within three months from the date of filing of show cause by the petitioner. It is made clear that till final orders are - 4 - passed afresh, petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary and shall not be entitled to function on any post. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)