IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14649 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Ram Baran Prasad S/O Shri Shivnandan Mahto Vill- Harihar Urdana, P.S. Kutumba, Distt. Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare Deptt., New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The Director-In-Chief Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna 3. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Aurangabad 4. The Incharge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Kutumba, Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md.Gayasuddin Khan Mr. Ranjan Kr.Singh Mr. Ram Bilash Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp13) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 06/ 09-09-2011 Petitioner was empanelled as successful trainee for appointment against Class III post of Basic Health Worker vide order dated 13.6.1977 (Annexure-2). He was recommended for appointment against the post of Basic Health Worker by Director-in-chief, Health Services vide order dated 22.4.1980. The petitioner gave his joining in the office of Civil Surgeon – cum- Chief Medical Officer, Nawada as Basic Health Worker on 17.5.1980 in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. The service Patna High Court CWJC No.14649 of 2009 (6) dt.09-09-2011 2 / 6 2 book of the petitioner was opened on 10.4.1981 and he was transferred and relieved for giving joining at Primary Health Centre, Atri, Gaya in April, 1986. He continued uninterruptedly on the post till 1994. In April, 1994 salary of the petitioner was stopped by the Incharge Medical Officer, Aurangabad and he asked to submit his original certificates. The certificates of the petitioner were forwarded by the Incharge Medical Officer to Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. The Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad enquired into the matter and the petitioner was allowed to function. C.W.J.C. No. 4349 of 1996 was preferred by the petitioner and that was allowed giving direction to make payment of arrears of salary and current salary. The petitioner, thereafter, continued on the post. Again his salary was stopped by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad and the Incharge Medical Officer was asked to submit report relating to the validity of the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, was confirmed on the post and continued, but vide order dated 8.1.2002 he was terminated from his service on the ground that his appointment was made without following the procedure. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. Patna High Court CWJC No.14649 of 2009 (6) dt.09-09-2011 3 / 6 3 No. 2435 of 2002, which was heard analogous with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. As per the direction of the Division Bench all matters were preferred to the Five Men Committee being constituted by the State Govt. to examine the illegality of appointments in the light of the observations and directions give by the Apex Court in State of Karnatka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others reported in 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363. Petitioner’s case is that the Five Men Committee did not submit any report in 245 matters which also included the petitioner’s case. Subsequently, when MJC No. 3172 of 2006was filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt for approximately 245 matters have been kept pending by the State Govt. Division Bench directed to dispose of those matters and submit report. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without looking into the records connected with the appointment of the petitioner and without assigning any opportunity to the petitioner for defending his case. The Committee submitted a report, that report was also not communicated to the petitioner; as such petitioner till the date of filing of writ application was unaware about the report submitted by the Committee with regard to his Patna High Court CWJC No.14649 of 2009 (6) dt.09-09-2011 4 / 6 4 appointment. For the first time, petitioner has come to know about the finding recorded by the Committee, when the counsel appearing for the State on the direction of the Court has produced the report of Committee before the Court. In this report petitioner’s appointment has been kept in the forged category. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this shows the arbitrariness on the part of the members of the Committee in course of conducting enquiry. It was completely an illegal and arbitrary, misuse of power vested in them under the orders of the Court. This was not the direction of the Court that without assigning any opportunity to the person concerned, any report should be submitted. Petitioner was terminated from his service vide order dated 8.1.2002 on the ground that he had been appointed without following the procedure provided under the Rules. There was no such allegation that the appointment letter is forged, how the Committee came to this conclusion that it was a forged appointed, it is completely unknown to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that till date on the basis of so called report of the Enquiry Committee no termination order has been issued against the petitioner. So far his earlier order of termination dated 8.1.2002 is concerned, that was already quashed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.14649 of 2009 (6) dt.09-09-2011 5 / 6 5 Division Bench while deciding L.P.A. 946 of 2003 and others. In this circumstance, the respondents are duty bound to reinstate the petitioner on his post, allow him to function and discharge his duty with all consequential benefits. In the counter affidavit of the State there is no whisper regarding giving any opportunity to the petitioner for appearing before the Five Men Committee for defending his case. The report is completely silent on this point whether before declaring the appointment letter of the petitioner as forged letter, the authority concerned, under whose signature appointment letter had been issued, was ever notice and called to deny his signature on the appointment letter. All these points have already been considered in a decision reported in P.L.J.R. 2009 (4) 690 and the entire report submitted by the Five Men Committee has been quashed. The order passed by the Single Bench reported in P.L.J.R. 2009(4) 690 has been affirmed by the Division Bench in many cases in which also similar allegations have been made by the petitioners. I find that petitioner’s case is fully covered by the decision reported in P.L.J.R. 2009(4) 690 as well as subsequent orders passed in different L.P.A. by the Division Bench. In this view of the matter the respondents Director- Patna High Court CWJC No.14649 of 2009 (6) dt.09-09-2011 6 / 6 6 in-chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna as well as Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad are directed to accept the petitioner’s joining on the post he was working before issuance of termination order dated 8.1.2002, reinstate him on this post and allowed to discharge duty. Petitioner will be entitled for all his arrears of salary and consequential benefits on account of his reinstatement and joining on the post. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)