CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5648 OF 1988 In the matter of an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India 1. MOST. SHEOJOTI KUER, WIFE OF LATE BASISTA NARAIN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AGAUTHER, POST OFFICE AGAUTHER NAND, P.S. ISHUAPUR(TARAIYA), DISTRICT SARAN. 2. KASHI NATH PANDEY. 3. KRISHNA PANDEY. 4. YOGENDRA PANDEY 5. HARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY, NO.2 TO 5 SONS OF LATE BASISTHA NARAIN PANDEY. 6. INDU KUMARI, D/O LATE BASISTHA NARAIN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AGAUTHER NAND P.S. ISHWAPUR(TARAIYA) DIST. SARAN. ----------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHAPRA, SARAN -----------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, advocate. For the Corporation : M/s P.K.Verma, Sr.Adv. S.R. Sharan, advocates. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 to 6, namely, Bashishtha Narain Pandey are aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.1131 dated 7.5.1987, Annexure-9, whereunder the Divisional Manager refused to accept the joining of Bashishtha Narain Pandey on the post of Driver as his services stood terminated under - 2 - office order No. 1604 dated 7.7.1986. They are further aggrieved by the order bearing memo No. 801 dated 7.7.1988, Annexure-12 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, whereunder appeal filed by Bashistha Narain Pandey on 23.6.1987 against the termination order dated 7.7.1986 has been rejected holding the same to be time barred. From perusal of appellate order dated 7.7.1988, it appears that service of Bashishtha Narain Pandey was terminated on the ground that he was a habitual absentee and did not mend his ways despite repeated warnings. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if Bashishtha Narain Pandey was a habitual absentee, he was required to have been proceeded against for such misconduct but without initiating any departmental proceeding against him alleging habitual absentation, termination order dated 7.7.1986 was passed on the basis of which his joining was refused under order dated 7.5.1987, Annexure-9 and the two orders are arbitrary and fit to be set aside. 4. In spite of notice of the writ petition, the substitution petition the authorities of the Corporation have not filed counter affidavit disputing the assertion of the petitioners that services of Bashishtha Narain Pandey was terminated by the authorities of the Corporation without any departmental proceeding, although, his services on the post of Driver stood confirmed in the light of office order No.2200 of 1970 bearing memo No.6329 dated 17.9.1970, Annexure-2. It is well settled that the regular employee of the Corporation can be dismissed only after undergoing departmental - 3 - proceeding for the misconduct but in the instant case, services of Bashishta Narain Pandey was terminated without giving him any opportunity of showing cause. In the circumstances, the impugned order of termination dated 7.7.1986 on the basis of which joining of Bashishtha Narain Pandey was not accepted is wholly illegal. The appellate order has been passed by the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation without appreciating the fact that Bashishta Narain Pandey could not have been dismissed from service of the Corporation without conducting departmental proceeding, as such, the appellate order dated 7.7.1988 is also without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, all the three orders, i.e. termination order dated 7.7.1986, order dated 7.5.1987 refusing to accept the joining of Bashishtha Narain Pandey and the appellate order dated 7.7.1988, Annexures-9 and 12 are set aside with direction to the authorities of the Corporation to pay the petitioners entire arrears of salary of Bashishtha Narain Pandey from the date of order dated 7.5.1987 till the date of his death i.e. 10.10.1993 or the date of his superannuation, which ever is earlier as also the retiral dues as he was restrained from discharging his duties in the Corporation on the basis of illegal order dated 7.7.1986 as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the competent authority of the Corporation. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 5th August, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N. Sinha, J.) - 4 -