IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7809 of 2005 DILIP KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI SIA SHARAN SINGH, RESIDING AT BUDHA COLONY, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, TOWN AND DISTRICT – PATNA. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONAL), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. ………….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 19.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 4019 dated 30.10.2022 dismissing the petitioner from the service of Constable, present writ application has been filed. The termination order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that without issuing any notice to show cause, without initiating any departmental proceeding, the termination order has been passed against him, which is completely in violation of rule of natural justice as well as the settled procedure legally required to be adopted for terminating a govt. employee. Petitioner has also taken this ground that so called show cause notice (Annexure-2), in fact, is not a show cause but it 2 is a punishment order in the garb of show cause notice. The decision regarding termination from service had already been taken, but simply a formality was observed by issuing a show cause notice, which did not even disclose the reason for coming to this conclusion that appointment of the petitioner is illegal. Facts of this case as disclosed in the writ application is that petitioner was appointed by the then S.P. Shri Meena, for some special reason i.e. bravery shown by him in connection with some occurrence. Though, it has been stated in the writ application that a notice was published on the notice board inviting applications for filling vacancies of Constables but that has been denied in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit specific stand of the Respondent is that completely in violation of Rule 661(6) of the Police Manual and the relevant police order in this regard, petitioner was appointed by the then S.P. The reservation policy of the State Govt. and procedure legally required to be followed for an appointment to the post of Constable was completely 3 ignored. Since the appointment was illegal, ab initio, as such there was no requirement for initiating a departmental proceeding, was not at all required for passing a termination order. Even then, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was given opportunity to put his defence against the notice issued to him, showing intention to terminate him. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported decision of Jharkhand High Court stating that in the similar facts and circumstances termination order has been quashed. On perusal of this judgment, I find that there is distinction in between the facts of the present case as well as unreported decision of the Jharkhand High Court. In that case even a show cause notice had not been issued to the writ petitioner, before terminating him from the service, but so far present case is concerned, opportunity was provided to the petitioner for submitting his show cause. This show cause though has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that instead of show cause notice it is a punishment order. But, considering the facts and circumstance of 4 this case, since, the petitioner was illegally appointed, in violation of all legal requirement, it was sufficient that he was given intimation regarding the termination from service. An opportunity was also provided to him to put his defence. Considering everything the termination order cannot be held an illegal order. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)