IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1904 of 2004 SUBODH KUMAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar J.C. to G.A. 5. ----------- 4 07.08.2008 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on 12.11.1982 as a Compounder in the office of the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh. He was transferred from one place to another in course of his duties. Suddenly on 1.1.1997, a show cause notice was issued to him with regard to the illegality of his appointment. It is stated that the letter no. 2681 dated 12.11.1982 by which the petitioner claimed to have been appointed has been denied by the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh to have been issued by him. The petitioner filed his show cause after which the appointment of the petitioner was terminated on 17.1.1997 on the ground that the aforesaid letter of appointment had not been issued by the authority it was attributed to and who has denied issuance of the same i.e. show cause was not acceptable leading to a conclusion of appointment letter being forged. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1125/1997. The writ application was dismissed. Civil Review No. 350/1998 arising therefrom was dismissed. L.P.A. NO. 1145/1999 against the same was also dismissed. The matter then traveled to the Supreme Court and that order is reported in 2001 (3) P.L.J.R. 187(S.C) (Subodh Kumar - 2 - Prasad V. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Apex Court noticed that this Court called for the original records and upon verification of the issue register, it was not satisfied to the genuineness of the appointment and therefore, dismissed the writ application. The Apex Court in paragraph no. 6 of it observed as follows: “What should have been really examined in the case is the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate dispatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issued to the appellant was a fake one there was certainly a cause for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred for numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the inquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order of the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That inquiry was not done by the learned Single Judge.” Reinstatement was thus ordered with 50 % of back wages with liberty to the respondents to proceed appropriately in law, if they so desire. This was followed by a fresh show cause notice dated 16.8.2001 issued by the respondents. The show cause notice again referred to the records of the office of the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh and not to the appointment letter in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court. The petitioner replied to the same on 25.8.2001 reiterating his appointment by the competent authority. A fresh order of termination followed on 22.3.2002. It again referred to non-availability of relevant records in the office of Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh. Learned counsel for the State very fairly acknowledged that the only issue for determination was the genuineness of the - 3 - appointment letter of the petitioner that the respondents were not oblivious of the letter of appointment and its contents. That a copy of the letter of appointment was also placed before them. To this Court, all that was required to be done now was to ask the petitioner to produce his original letter of appointment. Confirmation should then have been sought for from the signatory of the letter if the initials were genuine. If the signature was no more available, the signature had to be performed from a comparative analysis of the incumbent on the post that the appointment letter was issued from government records. In this manner, the petitioner was to be confronted with the allegations of forgery. That has admittedly not been done at all. In the fresh inquiry, the respondents have completely failed to follow the directions given by the Supreme Court when they were given liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court to grant the respondent another liberty to do so. This Court does not accede to this request. The petitioner has fought a protracted battle since 17.1.1997. The citizen cannot be exposed to the vagaries of the State when the latter has refused to follow the directions of the Supreme Court. The order of termination dated 22.3.2002 is ,accordingly, set aside. The application stands allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner next pressed for back wages relying on the order of the Apex Court on previous occasion - 4 - awarding 50 % back wages to submit that now the petitioner should be granted the entire back wages. The facts of the case are telling. Nonetheless the grant of back wages cannot be automatic but shall depend on various factors including the status of the employee in the mean time. This Court, therefore, considers it proper to grant 50 % back wages to the petitioner with 2% interest which must be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the dues shall carry interest @ 5% till the date of payment. In so far as the remaining 50 % of back wages are concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation for the same which the authority shall be required to consider in accordance with law and determine the same finally within a period of one month from the date of such presentation when this claim shall abide by the final orders that may be passed by the authorities. The petitioner stands reinstated. The writ application stands allowed. pkj (Navin Sinha, J)