IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6005 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner states that he was appointed in the year 1990 and came to be regularized in pursuance of a direction dated 5.1.1991 complied with on 4.4.1991. Nine years after his appointment a show cause notice was issued to him on 11.10.2000. He replied to it. The enquiry report dated 17.11.2000 under the signature of the Additional Collector returned a finding of valid appointment. Notwithstanding the same, his services were terminated by an order dated 27.2.2002. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 9568 of 2003 along with CWJC No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases, which was allowed. The State preferred L.P.A. No. 155 of 2004 against the same when the matter was referred to the State Government for examination by a Committee which now classifies the petitioner as a forged appointee. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon certain orders of this Court in CWJC No. 4872 of 2009, CWJC No. 5572 of 2009 and CWJC No. 4797of 2009. He submits that this Court in the aforesaid case has held that such fresh orders of termination by the Committee without considering the earlier enquiry reports of validity of appointment, in an ex parte enquiry, without complying with that part of the direction of the writ Court, that those who 2 appointed the petitioner was also liable to be inquired into and proceeded with, is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the State is unable to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of the orders of this Court relied upon by the petitioner. For reasons discussed in the aforesaid orders, this application has to be allowed in similar terms and directions. The impugned order of termination dated 15.11.2008 is, accordingly, quashed. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)