IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6078 of 2009 HEM CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 18.05.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed on 11.7.1982 by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer as a Non Medical Assistant, his service book was opened, he was sent for training, given a regular pay scale and other service benefits. First time bound promotion was granted on 16.7.1992. The submission is that after all this was done years later on 5.2.2003 a show cause notice was issued in cyclostyle format with his name filled in the manner of fill in the blanks. He was asked to produce his appointment letter and how he had learnt about the vacancy. The reservation roster was alleged not to have been followed and that no selection committee had been constituted. The petitioner replied to the same. Another show cause notice followed on 22.3.2003 which was likewise replied. On 7.6.2003 followed the order of termination. The respondents held that the petitioner had been asked to show cause but that no records were available in the office with regard to his appointment. The presumption thus was of a forged appointment. The appointment was by a Civil Surgeon. The termination letter was also by the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 9817 of 2003 assailing the same. The writ application was tagged with LPA No. 946 of 003 and analogous cases which referred the 2 matter for scrutiny by a committee of the respondents. The committee report dated 29.6.2007 now classifies the petitioner as a forged appointee. Specific statement has been made in Para 17 that the petitioner was provided no hearing by the committee before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner’s appointment was forged, Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Division Bench in LPA No. 946 of 2003 had observed that the respondents may issue public notice if so advised and it was for the petitioner to have responded to the same. The petitioner was appointed in July 1982. If the appointment was illegal, surely the petitioner has much to answer. But the termination on that issue has to be in accordance with law. The respondents stated in the impugned order that since they are not able to find records in their own office they presumed that the appointment is forged. They asked the petitioner to produce papers with regard to constitution of the committee for selection etc. which in normal course of duty and events are required to be available in the office of the respondents themselves. If reservation roster was not followed it is for the respondents to find the answer. The Division Bench issued no mandamus that notice was to be issued by publication only. It was in the nature of advisory only. Reasons were required to be recorded why the respondents did not consider it proper to issue individual notice. The employment of the petitioner was at stake. He was to loose his 3 job and livelihood. The respondents were required to serve individual notice on him, give him an opportunity to defend himself and then record a reasoned finding as to why they classified his appointment as forged. The only material available before this Court today is the earlier termination letter dated 7.6.2003 that no records of his appointment were available in the office and hence presumption of forged appointment. In either event of the matter, whether it be non compliance with the principles of natural justice prior to a finding in ex parte enquiry of the alleged forged nature of his appointment, or it be the ground of non speaking order, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order in the present form. If the petitioner secured the appointment contrary to law and continued for long years, there were some in the office of the respondents who aided and abetted it. If the petitioner has to be faulted with they cannot escape scrutiny. The standard by which Government proposes to act by classifying the petitioner as forged appointee not fit to be kept in employment is the same standard the Government will be bound to act with regard to those in whose connivance the petitioner continued in employment for long years. The issue of salary paid to the petitioner in connivance of the officials from the coffer of the Government also arises. If the petitioner has to be terminated, the question of recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner from those who appointed him and permitted him to continue in service causing monetary loss to the Government also arises. 4 The impugned order classifying the petitioner as forged appointee in the present form is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The respondents are granted liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they so desire. In any such proceeding, the respondents are direct to bring within the ambit of such proceeding the officials who appointed the petitioner or permitted him to continue in service. If the petitioner is found to be an illegal appointee and asked to go such officers are also required to be proceeded with simultaneously either under the Service Rules, the Indian Penal Code or the Bihar Pension Rules, as the case may be. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated subject to the aforesaid conditions. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)