IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5267 of 2002 AJIT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Narendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate For the State: Mr Sunil Kumar Mandal,SC 15 With Mr Arjun Prasad, JC to SC 15 -------- 8. 27.01.2009 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner came to this Court with the prayer to direct the respondents to accept his joining and to pay him his salary as also the arrears of salary. Learned counsel heavily relied on an order of this Court dated 7.11.2001 in CWJC No. 12630 of 2001 in which were issued notwithstanding which it is stated has his joining has not been accepted nor arrears paid. While the writ application was pending before this Court the respondents have issued an order dated 15.5.2002 terminating his services which is assailed by Annexure 13 to I.A. No. 2993 of 2002. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. Having heard the Counsels for the parties, I.A. No. 2993 of 2002 is allowed. This Court in CWJC No. 12630 of 2001 was concerned with a controversy with regard to the order of transfer of the petitioner. The Court did take note of the fact that the impugned order referred that the appointment of the petitioner appeared to be suspicious. The Court interfered with the transfer aspect only by quashing it with a direction to pay arrears of salary even while observing that if the appointment was suspected, the respondent no. 4 therein was well within his jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. It appears that the impugned order dated 15.5.2002 has followed as a sequel thereto. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed this Court refrains from considering the pleadings of the petitioner with regard to validity of his appointment and the counter affidavit of the respondents disputing the same as that may not be conducive for the purpose of nature of the order passed hereinafter. The impugned order dated 15.5.2002 is based on an ex parte enquiry. From the pleadings in the counter affidavit also this fact is not in dispute. There appears to be a serious issue if the author of the letter had actually issued the appointment letter or not and whether the modalities for appointment were followed. The law stands well settled that even in an allegation of fake and forged appointment, an enquiry is necessary to arrive at a finding of fact with regard to the issue/ground. The impugned order of termination dated 15.5.2002 not being in consistent with the principles of natural justice is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 to issue notice to the petitioner setting out the grounds of alleged illegality in his appointment and then take fresh decision thereupon in accordance with law within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The impugned order dated 15.5.2002 is set aside for that limited purpose and shall not result in automatic reinstatement of the petitioner which shall naturally have to abide by the result of such fresh enquiry. The writ application stands disposed with the observations indicated above. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)