IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7444 of 2010 SATRUGHAN JHA, S/O SHYAMA JHA, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAPUR,P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. ……….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 10/02/2011 Against the earlier termination order dated 14.10.2000, petitioner had moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.1468 of 2001. The said writ application was ultimately heard along with C.W.J.C.No.1316 of 2001 and disposed of by this Court by order dated 5.2.2001, as contained in Annexure-5. Learned single Judge, relying upon judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A.No.270 of 2000, allowed both the writ applications and set aside the order of termination of the petitioner. However, it was observed that the order passed in L.P.A. would govern the cases of the petitioners in which liberty had been granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders in respect of appointment of concerned petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, respondents issued a second show cause notice to the 2 petitioner through letter no.1103 dated 14.6.2001. From the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that the respondents got information that petitioner had filed fresh writ application in this Court challenging the second show cause notice itself as also a contempt application against the respondents. It is also noticed in the impugned order that the proposal of the Department to file appeal against the said order of learned single Judge passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner was turned down by the Law Department. Therefore, by memo no.908 dated 1.6.2002, the order dated 14.10.2000, terminating the services of the petitioner, was cancelled and his services were restored on the condition that the said order shall be governed by the order passed in the case of the petitioner in the second writ application. Later on, respondents found that the petitioner had never filed any second writ application and had withdrawn the contempt application on the basis of information sought for from the Advocate General in 2009. Thereafter, it has been 3 noticed in the impugned order that, complying with the said order of learned single Judge dated 5.2.2001, as contained in Annexure-5, services of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.1316 of 2001 had subsequently terminated. Hence, it has been concluded by the Director in the impugned order that as the order cancelling the termination of the petitioner was dependent upon the order passed by this Court in the second writ application supposed to have been filed by the petitioner in 2002, and there being no writ application in existence, services of the petitioner was fit to be terminated which has been terminated with immediate effect by the impugned order. A counter affidavit has been filed in which same facts have been reiterated which have been noticed in the impugned order. Even if it is accepted that due to mistake on the part of the respondents, they had proceeded under false impression that the petitioner had filed subsequent writ application and therefore, restoration of services of the petitioner on that ground did not create any right in the petitioner, this cannot be disputed that the respondents were 4 obliged to act in accordance with the order of this Court passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner. As evident from Annexure-5, the order of this Court, it is clear that the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 14.10.2000 had been set aside. While setting aside the orders, this Court had observed that the cases of the petitioners shall be governed by the orders passed in the L.P.A., according to which liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders with respect to the appointment of the petitioners in accordance with law. In view of such liberty, respondents did issue second show cause notice to the petitioner through letter dated 14.6.2001. Although, document is not annexed but it has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of the writ application that the petitioner filed reply to the said second show cause notice on 27.6.2001. Obviously, since the respondents cancelled the termination order by subsequent memo dated 1.6.2002, there was no question of consideration of reply of the petitioner and passing of speaking order on merits afresh in 5 terms of the liberty granted by this Court. But now that admittedly the said memo dated 1.6.2002 was issued on mistaken notion that the petitioner had already moved this Court, the effect of said memo stands wiped out. However, consequence of the same is that the situation reverts back to the second show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner of which he had replied on 27.6.2001. In the circumstances, in terms of the order of this Court passed in the first writ application of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-5, respondents were required to consider the reply of the petitioner and pass fresh speaking order on merits in respect of his appointment in accordance with law. The respondent Director has failed to do that, as it is apparent from the impugned order that noticing the fact that memo dated 1.6.2002 cancelling the order of termination by order dated 14.10.2000 was issued under wrong premises, he has simply issued orders of termination of the petitioner. He completely missed the fact that the said order of termination of the petitioner dated 14.6.2001 already stood set 6 aside by the learned single Judge in the earlier writ application. Notwithstanding the fact that memo dated 1.6.2002 was issued wrongly, the order dated 14.10.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner was not in existence in the eye of law. Therefore, the only course open to the respondent Director was to proceed from the stage of issue of second show cause notice and filing of its reply, and consider the same on merits and pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law. He has not done that and has merely issued the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner on account of wrong issue of memo dated 1.6.2002. In the circumstances, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. Respondent Director is directed to take up the matter of the petitioner afresh from the date of issue of second show cause notice to him by letter dated 14.6.2001, consider his reply if filed. If necessary, as the matter is an old one, he shall give opportunity to the petitioner to appear in person and file any further documents or application/ 7 representation and thereafter shall pass fresh speaking orders in accordance with law. The exercise in this regard must be completed by the Director within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, even if petitioner does not cooperate in the matter. However, it is made clear that for these three months, petitioner will neither be allowed to join his duty nor will he be entitled to draw his salary. However, if for no fault of the petitioner, final orders are not passed, on expiry of three months, services of the petitioner shall be restored and he shall be entitled to his salary and other allowances. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)