IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4697 of 2010 1. RENU KUMARI D/O SHRI YAMUNA RAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM KACHAHARI, DUMARI, BLOCK- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. THE S.D.O., SASARAM null P.O. AND P.S. SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS 5. THE B.D.O., SHEOSAGAR BLOCK P.O. AND P.S. SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 6. THE MUKHIA, DUMARI GRAM PANCHAYAT DUMARI, BLOCK- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. THE SARPANCH, DUMARI GRAM PANCHAYAT P.O. - DUMARI, BLOCK- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 2/ 04/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who claims to have been appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery at Dumari Panchayat in Rohtas is aggrieved by the termination of his service by orders dated 30.10.2009 and 17.2.2010 on the ground that he was not a resident of Dumari Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he applied in the prescribed manner enclosing his residence certificate that he was a resident of Dumari Panchayat not only in his application but also at the time of counseling. These facts were fully considered by the authorities and after their satisfaction the petitioner was selected and appointed on 22.11.2007 whereafter he was called for training also. His original documents prior - 2 - thereto were examined on 19.11.2007. The service has then been terminated without enquiry or show cause notice as aforesaid and direction for return/recovery of salary has been issued. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the recitals in the impugned order that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, served upon him and only whereafter the order has been passed. Under Rule-5 of the Bihar Gram Kutchery Secretary (Appointment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 it was a mandatory condition that the applicants had to be a resident of the concerned Panchayat. Once the petitioner was appointed by the respondents, a presumption is there that official acts were properly performed and his qualifications were properly examined under Section-114(e) for the Indian Evidence Act. The presumption is certainly rebuttable, but subject to compliance with the principles of natural justice. There is no discussion in the impugned orders that any show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before termination. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner in paragraph-13 of the writ application that the order was in violation of the principles of natural - 3 - justice. The impugned orders dated 30.10.2009 and 17.2.2010 are accordingly set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed appropriately before the Sub- divisional Officer under Rule-12, appeal against which shall lie to the aggrieved before the District Magistrate under Rule-30. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)