IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16966 of 2009 1. PRATIMA KUMARI W/O SRI AKHILESH KUMAR R/O VILL & P.O. DHANGAMA, P.S. JEHANABAD, DISTT. JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER DARBHANGA 5. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, BIROUL, DISTT. DARBHANGA ----------- 2 30.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order contained in memo no.3899 dated 5.12.2002 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga, whereby she has been terminated from her service after ten years of the appointment on the post of A.N.M. Petitioner’s case is that she was duly appointed and thereafter regularized and absorbed in permanent capacity on the post but without following any procedure for terminating permanent employees, she was removed by issuing termination order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga, from which it transpires that order of - 2 - termination was issued after giving full opportunity to the petitioner as she had been appointed on the basis of forged ANM registration certificate. Following the procedure the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga had verified from the Registrar, Bihar Nurses Registration Council, Patna regarding the genuineness of petitioner’s ANM Registration Certificate. The Registrar Bihar Nurses Registration Council, Patna had informed the Civil Surgeon- cum –Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga by letter no. 339 dated 17.7.2002 that the registration no. 7716, claimed by the petitioner, shows registration in the name of ANM Sunaina Devi and the petitioner was not registered under the same registration number. Since termination order had been issued giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after due verification, I do not find that plea taken by the petitioner, regarding issuance of termination order without giving any opportunity to defend petitioner’s case is incorrect. Otherwise also the termination order issued in the year 2002 is being challenged by the petitioner after a long gap, which is not maintainable. - 3 - For all these reasons, I do not find that the impugned order needs any interference. This application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar