IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6313 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 19.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.1.2009 dismissing him from service as upheld by the order dated 25.3.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages on 16.2.1985. On 14.5.1985 his services came to be regularized on a sanctioned vacant post. On 19.6.1999 general directions were issued to inquire into illegal appointments. The appointment of the petitioner was also inquired into when the Additional Collector by his report dated 20.10.2000 did not find any illegality in the appointment of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, a show cause notice was issued to him on 28.12.2002 in a cyclostyled format with merely his name filled as an addressee in the manner of ‘fill in the blanks’. The show cause notice mentioned 12 grounds. It was not specified as to which of the grounds was applicable to the petitioner. He replied to the same. Another show cause notice followed on 22.2.2003, which was again replied. A fresh show cause followed on 24.5.2003, which in like manner was replied. His termination then followed on 21.6.2003. It acknowledged that the petitioner had been regularized, however, it stated that in absence of proper 2 advertisement or calling of names from the Employment Exchange, interview, constitution of Selection Committee, roster clearance etc., appointment was not sustainable. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the same in CWJC No. 7376 of 2003. The order of termination was stayed on 13.8.2003. The submission is that the writ petition of the petitioner was tagged with a batch of the writ applications headed by L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. Simultaneously, some other matters came to be considered and disposed by this Court on 8.9.2003 in CWJC No. 4702 of 2003. In the latter case, writ applications were allowed. The orders of termination were set aside. The Court at page 11 of the judgment noticed with regard to those who allegedly made such illegal appointment and directed them to be proceeded with. CWJC No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases were also subject matter of appeal. The Appellate Court did not set aside the judgment of the writ Court, when it merged into the order of the Division Bench. The Respondents then preferred to act in a manner convenient to them to examine such appointments in light of the directions given by the Division Bench and to terminate persons like the petitioner without bothering to comply with that part of the directions of the writ Court to bring within the ambit of such enquiry those who made such illegal appointments. The standard by which the Government professes to act by terminating what it terms as illegal appointments after such 3 a long passage of time, is the same standard of conduct by which the Government shall be bound in taking action against those who made such illegal appointments. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 789 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & ors.) that such appointments are made for considerations including money. If there were two players in the game, the Respondents cannot find fault with the petitioner while seeking to protect their own officers. If the petitioner has to go, such Officer must also go, whether the action be under the Service Rules, Penal code or Bihar Pension rules, as the case may be. Coming to the facts of this case, it has been noticed above that the impugned order of termination dated 21.6.2003 talks of an illegal appointment of the petitioner, contrary to the procedures. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the Respondents in pursuance of the directions of the Division Bench for scrutiny of appointments by a Committee have acted ex parte without notice to him, condemning him unheard and arrived at a fresh finding that his appointment was forged in the list of persons. The impugned order dated 5.1.2009 based on the list defines him as an illegal appointee. The Respondents themselves seem to be not sure as to in which category the petitioner falls. Even if it was a forged appointee, it was to be considered in accordance with the directions in CWJC 4 No. 4702 of 2003 as discussed at page 14 of the judgment. Reliance is also placed on another order of this Court in CWJC No. 4797 of 2009 disposed on 16.4.2009 with regard to another person similarly situated, whose appointment also after enquiry had been found to be valid notwithstanding which fresh termination orders were passed. Viewed from either angle of ignoring earlier enquiry report of the valid appointment dated 20.10.2000, violation of principles of natural justice, ignoring the directions in CWJC No. 4702 of 2003 to simultaneously proceed against those who made illegal appointments the directions for the procedure to be followed for the determination of a forged appointment, and the vacillating stand of the Respondents themselves first describing him as an illegal appointee in the chart and then describing him as a forged appointee in the terminatin order, both of which have separate connotations, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order in any form. The impugned order dated 5.1.2009 and 25.3.2009 are, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated subject to the aforesaid right of the Respondents. If the Respondents desire to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law, they can do so only in the manner discussed above and strictly in accordance with the directions contained in CWJC No. 4702 of 2003. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)