IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6233 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 18.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed in February, 1987 as a Clerk on daily wages when he came to regularized on 29.12.1989 and was granted regular pay scale and was transferred also. On 19.12.2002 a show cause notice followed as to why his services be not terminated. The termination order followed on 31.12.2002, when the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 8694 of 2003. The impugned order of termination classified the petitioner as a forged appointee. His writ petition was heard along with CWJC No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases. At page 14 of the judgment the writ Court gave the following direction with regard to alleged forged appointee like the petitioner : “So far the forged appointments are concerned, the State authorities will be at liberty to identify such cases and take disciplinary action against such persons after holding inquiry and giving an opportunity of being heard to them, but, in no case, their action in terminating such employees without inquiry can be allowed to sustain. In case of Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others (2001) 3 Patna law Journal Reports (SC) 187), the Apex Court has held that obtainment of service on the strength of fake appointment letters constitutes a case for disciplinary action.” L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases were 2 preferred against the same. The Division Bench did not set aside the order of the Writ Court but referred the matter to the Screening Committee to be constituted by the Respondents. The Screening Committee classifies the petitioner as forged appointee. The limited submission on behalf of the petitioner is that once the order of the Writ Court was not set aside by the Division Bench and the order of the Writ Court merged in the order of the Division Bench, that part of the direction to hold a disciplinary proceeding with regard to a person alleged to be a forged appointee was required to be complied with by the Respondents in pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench. Additionally, this Court is satisfied that even a finding of forgery has to be arrived at after considering the defence of the person alleged to have been the fraudulent appointee. It does not appear that the petitioner was noticed and properly heard before a finding of forged appointment was arrived at. This Court has already held in similar matters that there was no direction by the Division Bench to issue only a paper communication. The appointment of the petitioner was at stake. He could not be condemned unheard by permitting the Respondents to resort to a method convenient to them for issuance of notice. No reason has been assigned why individual notices were not issued. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order of termination in its present form. The petitioner stands reinstated. The writ application is allowed. The Respondents are at 3 liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the directions given by the writ Court merged in the appeal. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)