IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6653 of 2009 KAUSHAL KUMAR DAS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3 19..3.2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order dated 5.1.2006 issued by the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea. He was dismissed from service on the ground that his appointment was made by an incompetent authority, as such it is illegal. Petitioner was appointed on 15.3.1980 by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea on the post of Non-Medical Assistant, which is a class III Post of the State Government. Petitioner’s grievance is that in a most illegal and arbitrary manner he was terminated from his service without considering that on the date of issuance of termination order he had already been confirmed on his post vide order dated 24.6.1992 with effect from 1983. In case of a Government employee who is confirmed on his post, a procedure has to be followed before his termination from the service even that was not followed, simply by issuing an order; the petitioner was terminated from the 2 service. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that on representation filed by the petitioner before the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Purnea Division, Purena an inquiry was held and a report was submitted before the Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. This report indicated that at the relevant time when the petitioner was appointed on the post of Non-Medical Assistant the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer was competent authority for making such appointment. The Regional Deputy Director on receipt of the inquiry report directed the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer to reinstate the petitioner, as the termination order was illegal. Despite this direction issued by the Regional Deputy Director, nothing was done; as such writ application was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the termination order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and the affidavit has been sworn by the Medical Officer in D.P.C., Purnea. Even the Counsel appearing for the State is not aware whether Medical Officer was in DTC and what were the function of the Medical Officer DPC, would be acquainted with the facts and circumstances 3 of the case, as such competent to swear affidavit. In this view of the matter, the statement made in the counter affidavit has no relevance. Otherwise also in the counter affidavit, there is no specific denial or admission of the facts stated in the writ application. In paragraph 9 of the writ application the petitioner has made statement regarding his confirmation by order dated 24.6.1992 with effect from 1983. There is no denial of this Fact. Considering complete silence in the counter affidavit relating to the statement made in para 9 of the writ application, the impugned termination order is apparently illegal and bad. A regular and confirmed employee could not have been terminated in the manner as the petitioner was terminated from his service. In the counter affidavit, there is no answer to the statement regarding the inquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director before the Commissioner, Purnea Division Purnea, indicating that Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer was the competent authority at the relevant time for making appointment of Class III employees, like petitioner. Since there is no denial, it will be treated as admission on the part of the respondents. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the termination order dated 5.1.2006 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Purnea, dismissing the petitioner from his service is quashed. The respondents Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna as well as Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith on production/communication of this order, latest within a period of two weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. The period during which the petitioner has remained out of the service on account of illegal order of termination will be treated as period of service and he will be entitled for all consequential benefits. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar