IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16693 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Nagendra Prasad Singh S/O Sri Haridwar Prasad Singh R/Ovill Barauni, P.O. Barauni Dheodi, In The Distt- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal - Cum- Secretary, Department Of Health Govt.Of Bihar, Patna 2. Director In Chief Health Service Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director , Health Service Muzaffarpur 4. Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer Muzaffarpur 5. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Muraul ,Distt- Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG II. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 04/ 13-09-2011 Counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears for the State neither any counter affidavit has been filed. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 71 dated 13.1.2004, whereby petitioner as well as 13 others were terminated from their service. Petitioner’s grievance is that except the petitioner all others, who were terminated by the orders of Respondent No. 2, have already been reinstated in service. The ground for termination was that the appointing authority was not competent to issue appointment Patna High Court CWJC No.16693 of 2009 (4) dt.13-09-2011 2 / 5 2 letter of the petitioner being an Incharge Civil Surgeon, at the relevant time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination order dated 13.1.2004 contained in Memo No. 71 was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14650 of 2004 which was heard and disposed of analogous with L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. The direction was to the State Govt. for constituting Five Men Committee to examine individual case of each petitioner and to categorize their appointment in the light of Apex Court’s decision in case of Secretary, State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi and to pass necessary order, in case it is fit for regularization or termination. The report submitted by the so called Five Men Committee, in the light of the direction of LPA Bench, in regard to the petitioner has been challenged on following grounds. (1) The report instead of being Five Men Committee report was, in reality Three Men Committee report, as two of the members abstained and did not sign the report, considering illegal procedure adopted by the Committee; (2) The enquiry report was submitted Patna High Court CWJC No.16693 of 2009 (4) dt.13-09-2011 3 / 5 3 without any proper application of mind as the factual aspect of appointment of any candidate was not considered; and (3) In case of petitioner the enquiry report is that petitioner’s appointment is illegal as it was done by the Incharge Civil Surgeon, not competent to issue such appointment letter.The factual aspect is that the regular Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur Dr. R.N. Rai , who was also Incharge Acting Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur has issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. This shows that without considering the case of petitioner’s appointment report has been submitted. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that 14 persons were appointed by same authority i.e. Dr. R.N. Rai, who Patna High Court CWJC No.16693 of 2009 (4) dt.13-09-2011 4 / 5 4 was the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur at the relevant time. In case of 13 persons there is no such finding recorded by the Enquiry Committee rather their appointments have been shown to be irregular appointment and on account of such finding they all have been regularized and reinstated on their posts. Name of such persons have been given by the petitioner in para 10 of Interlocutory application. I find that these three grounds are sufficient for holding that enquiry report on the basis of which petitioner is restrained from being allowed to join his post, is completely illegal and fit to be quashed. The direction of LPA Bench regarding enquiring each individual case is completely absent so far enquiry report is concerned. Even without examining the factual aspect of individual cases, merely on presumption and imagination reports have been submitted. On the basis of such report, an employee, who continued on his post for more than 20 years, could not have been terminated. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in identical cases in different writ applications challenging the enquiry report; have been affirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing L.P.A.’s preferred by the State. I find that petitioner’s case is fit to be allowed, Patna High Court CWJC No.16693 of 2009 (4) dt.13-09-2011 5 / 5 5 quashing the termination order dated 13.1.2004 contained in Memo No. 71 as well as enquiry report of the Five Men Committee. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his post he was working with all consequential benefits. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)