IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1792 of 2004 Mahesh Prasad, son of Sri Kedar Singh, resident of village Teldiha, P.S. Barun (Jamhore), District- Aurangabad. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Indigenous Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Family Welfare and Indigenous Medicine, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Dr.Balram, Former Principal, government Ayurvedic College, Patna 5. Dr.Mumtaz Ansari, District Indigenous medical Officer, Sitamarhi 6. Head of Department, Post-Graduate Department, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Kadam Kuan, Patna-3 ………. Respondents ----------- 7. 10/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of office order of the office of Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Patna, contained in Memo No.53 dated 21.1.2004, annexed as Annexure-9, by which his appointment has been cancelled precisely on the ground of forgery committed by him in obtaining his appointment in the College as Lab Attendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a short point. He submits that the impugned - 2 - order does not disclose any reason or any material to show as to under what circumstances it has been held that petitioner indulged into forgery for getting his appointment as Lab Attendant in the College. He submits that the order apparently appears to be passed on some communication from the office of the Director, Indigenous Medicine, contained in letter no.30 dated 9.1.2004. He submits that, in fact, petitioner was not appointed in the College, rather he was transferred from his original place of posting at Government Homoeopathic Dispensary, Bairgania, Sitamarhi where he was originally appointed as Sweeper. He submits that prior to this order, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner by the respondent Principal by his letter no.43 dated 16.1.2004, annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ application. This notice shows that pursuant to some order of this Court passed in a writ matter in which petitioner was also a party, enquiry was held in respect of the appointment of the petitioner and it was prima facie found that he was not appointed anywhere under the Directorate and by practicing forgery he had obtained posting in the Government - 3 - Ayurvedic College, Patna, purported to be on transfer. Apparently, no document was enclosed with this notice and supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, in his reply, which petitioner filed on 17.1.2004, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application, he asked for copies of all those documents and enquiry reports. In his reply, he also mentioned that in course of preliminary enquiry the Principal had asked for documents from him verbally which he had handed over to him on 5.4.2003. However, no receipt was given to him and when petitioner requested the Principal for return of those documents, he refused to do the same and asked for illegal gratification. He submits that though there is mention of his reply in the impugned order, but the same has been rejected in one word finding it as “unsatisfactory”. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the said letter of the Director dated 9.1.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-C. This letter deals with the enquiry and mentions that the records were examined, - 4 - from which it transpired that petitioner was not appointed earlier in the Government Homoeopathic Dispensary, Bairgania, Sitamarhi, neither he was paid his salary. Therefore, there was no question of his transfer to the Government Ayurvedic College, Patna. This letter directs the Principal to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter take steps for cancellation of his appointment. The Principal was also directed to institute criminal case against petitioner for committing forgery. It is apparent that pursuant to this letter, said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-7, to which petitioner replied by Annexure-8. This is also apparent that along with the show cause notice no document or any report was supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner asked for copies of all the documents in his reply. He also leveled allegation against the Principal of the College of asking illegal gratification for return of his original certificates. Therefore, it is clear that in all propriety and fairness, the Principal should not have passed orders and should have referred the matter to the Director - 5 - again, in view of personal allegation leveled against him by the petitioner in his reply. Secondly, when admittedly no document or enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and petitioner specifically asked for the same, the Principal ought to have considered the same and ought to have supplied those documents as asked by the petitioner, if available, for giving him opportunity to file reply and thereafter should have given fair consideration of the case of petitioner. If he felt himself bound by the order of the Director, as contained in Annexure- C, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Director in view of the stand of petitioner in his reply and ought to have asked for guidelines in respect of demand of petitioner for supply of enquiry report and other documents. After receiving the said impugned order, petitioner filed representation before the Director, Indigenous Medicine, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10. It is apparent that the Director, Indigenous Medicine also did not apply his mind to the materials available on record and the stand of the petitioner in his show - 6 - cause reply as well as in his representation, and he passed cryptic order dated 31.1.2004, annexed as Annexure-10/A, by simply directing the Principal to pay arrears of salary of petitioner of the period he had already worked. Obviously, a very casual approach was adopted by the Principal as well as Director in the matter. The letter of the Director dated 9.1.2004 also does not show that at any point of time petitioner was asked to give any explanation in respect of absence of his name from the records of Government Homoeopathic Dispensary, Bairgania, Sitamarhi nor was he, at any point of time, asked to participate in the enquiry. Hence, violation of Principle of Natural Justice is writ large in the case. Therefore, only on this score, and without going into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ application is fit to be allowed. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Annexure-9 as well as Annexure-10/A is hereby quashed. In view of the allegation leveled in the reply of the petitioner, matter is remitted back to the Director, Indigenous Medicine, who shall give adequate opportunity - 7 - and fair hearing to the petitioner by providing him copies of the documents which petitioner may ask and which he may find relevant for consideration of the case or he may ask petitioner to inspect the records in his office in presence of any responsible employee of the office to enable petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive show cause reply within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the Director, Indigenous Medicine shall hear the matter with due opportunity to the petitioner or his representative and shall pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. For these three months, petitioner will not be entitled to salary and shall not be entitled to join his duties. However, in case, fresh orders are not passed by the Director, Indigenous Medicine within three months as stipulated above, petitioner will be entitled to join his duties and payment of his salary from the next date of expiry of three months. It is also made clear that if petitioner does not co-operate or in any way attempts to delay the enquiry, the Director, Indigenous Medicine shall be at - 8 - liberty to proceed in the matter ex-parte and conclude the same and pass orders within the time frame fixed by this Court recording specific reasons for that. The writ application is accordingly allowed with the above observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)