IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4920 of 2007 Madhukant Prasad, son of late Suraj Prasad, resident of village – Naya Tola, P S – Nanpur, District – Sitamarhi - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 The Deputy Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna 5 The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 6 The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 7 The Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 8 The Incharge Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Mallikapur, District – Vaishali at Hajipur - Respondents ----------- 7 12.05.2011 The petitioner had joined at Hazaribagh as an Office Assistant allegedly pursuant to appointment made by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh. He was then transferred to Hajipur. At Hajipur, petitioner was asked to produce his appointment letter. He submitted it. Petitioner alleges that, thereafter, in enquiry, it was confirmed that it was duly issued but nevertheless in 1993 itself, he was told not to work at all and he would be reinstated only after enquiry found in his favour. The matter, thus, rested. In 2007, petitioner files this writ petition stating that his appointment was genuine and bona fide and he had been arbitrarily retrenched in 1993 without any enquiry. The matter may also be referred to the Committee set up by this Court in the Division Bench to examine such appointments in the Health Department. After some difficulty, at last a counter affidavit has now been filed on behalf of Civil Surgeon, Vaishali. In the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that in order to file counter affidavit in this case, a team of doctors were sent to Hazaribagh to verify the factum of - 2 - petitioner’s appointment. On enquiry, it was found that there was no advertisement, no interview and in fact no appointment of the petitioner. The appointment letter, as produced by the petitioner, was a clear piece of forgery as the memo number and the date, as shown in the appointment letter, is in fact of a letter which was sent to one Dr Naresh Prasad, Medical Officer in some other respect and no such letter was at all issued much less dispatched from the office of the Civil Surgeon – cum- Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these are all ex parte enquiries and there being no departmental proceeding for his termination, his termination is bad. In my view, the first question that arises is whether the petitioner has been validly appointed or not. A departmental proceeding is contemplated in case of a Government employee. Here, the very question, whether petitioner is a Government employee or not, is in question apart from the said appointment letter and the subsequent alleged transfer letter which are both found to be forged. There is nothing more that the petitioner is able to produce to substantiate bona fide of his appointment. In view of this and in view of the fact that the effectual termination of the petitioner took place in 1993 and the writ petition is filed in 2007, after 14 years, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)