IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5580 of 2009 SURENDRA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 1.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Health Worker in 1989 and transferred from one place to another, and service book opened. On 22.11.2002 a show cause was issued to him on the nature of the appointment to which he replied. Another show cause followed in January, 2003. In June, 2003 he was terminated. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1531 of 2004 which was disposed off along with the L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases for scrutiny of the appointment by a Committee. In pursuance of the same the impugned order is at Annexure-12 dated 25.8.2008 of termination has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the pleadings made in Paragraph 6 of the application that the petitioner was appointed by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Gaya and at the time of his termination he was posted at Primary Health Centre, Daudnagar at Aurangabad. But the termination order in cyclostyled form refers to his appointment by the Civil Surgeon, Dumka and the name of the District was mentioned as Muzaffarpur in place of Aurangabad. The submission therefore is of complete non application of mind or at least prejudice to the petitioner by inadequate and improper consideration of the material furnished by - 2 - him. Learned counsel for the State is fair to state that prima facie it appears to be a matter which needs to be cross verified from the records. Considering the stage at which the matter rests, this Court has not considered it necessary to take note of the facts except to the extent necessary for the purposes of the present order and it refrain from any observation on the merits of the matter. The application is disposed with direction to the respondent no. 3 to examine the contention of the petitioner as made from the impugned order and if necessary re-verify the records to his satisfaction and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The impugned order is therefore set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned only to that extent and for that limited purpose. It is clarified that it shall not result in either reinstatement of the petitioner or any claim of the equity by the petitioner for that reason. Let such fresh consideration be done within the maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner if he so desire to seek personal hearing which the authority shall abide. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)