IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9499 of 2006 DUKHAMOCHAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner-M/s.Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Prafull Chandra Jha,Advocate For the State-Mr.Prabhat Kumar,S.C-21 ----------- 2 26.11.2009 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel No.21 for the respondents. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels for the respective parties, this writ application is being disposed of on a short point. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga, dated 20.6.2006, annexed as Annexure-6, by which services of the petitioner was terminated and the In- charge, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Benipur, Darbhanga, was directed to lodge an FIR against him in respect of forged appointment letter on the basis of which he obtained his appointment as compounder. After going through the order, it appears that the Respondent-Civil Surgeon has held the appointment letter of the petitioner as forged on the basis of entries made in the Issue Register of his Office in which Letter No.81 dated 5.11.1982, by which the petitioner claimed to have been appointed, does not find mention. The Respondent-Civil 2 Surgeon, has also held that three show-cause replies by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notices issued to him were unsatisfactory. In respect of the first ground for holding the appointment letter of the petitioner as forged, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001(3) PLJR, (SC) 187, and has contended that mere absence of entry in the issue register can not be held to be a conclusive proof of the appointment letter being forged. He has particularly placed reliance on Paragraph-6 of the Judgment which is re-produced herein below: Para-6: “What should have been really examined in the case is the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate despatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issue 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 or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That inquiry was not done by the learned Single Judge.” Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had filed detailed show- cause replies in response to the three show-cause notices in which he had effectively met the queries made from him through the show-cause notices issued to him which is evident 3 from Annexure-4 series. He submits that the same has been rejected by the Respondent-Civil Surgeon merely finding them unsatisfactory. Therefore, show-cause replies of the petitioner have been rejected by a non-speaking order and in one word which is contrary to the requirements of law. A Counter-affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents and learned Standing Counsel submits that the records itself show that the appointment of the petitioner was forged. He also submits that the show-cause notices and particularly notice dated 7.7.2005, mention as many as five grounds for holding the appointment of petitioner as forged and illegal and the petitioner was asked to file a reply to the same. Since the petitioner’s reply was not found satisfactory, the same has been rejected. However, he fairly submits that in this respect, order of the Civil Surgeon should have been a speaking order dealing with all issues raised in the show-cause notice and the replies made in respect thereto which he admits, was not done by the Civil Surgeon in the impugned order. In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and particularly observations made in Paragraph-6 as quoted above, he accepts that the Civil Surgeon ought to have held a detailed enquiry before holding the appointment letter of the petitioner as forged. Hence, he fairly admits that the case is fit to be remitted back to the respondents for 4 holding fresh consideration in the matter in compliance with Principle of Natural Justice, and the Civil Surgeon should be given an opportunity to pass a fresh speaking order in the matter. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that if after 24 years of service the petitioner’s appointment was being declared to be forged and illegal, then respondents-authorities have also a legal obligation to make enquiry with regard to the officers and staff of the Government who were responsible for his such illegal appointment and continuance in service for such a long period. In this respect, he refers to an order of a Bench of this Court dated 18.5.2009 passed in CWJC No.6078/2009. He submits that similar order of the same Civil Surgeon was under challenge in that writ application and while quashing the order, this Court directed for holding enquiry and fixing responsibilities on officers and staff of the Department who may be found responsible for such illegal appointment and continuance of the incumbents on the basis of the same for such a long period. This Court is in agreement with the said order of this Court. Therefore, this Court directs that, in case the appointment of petitioner is held to be forged and illegal after proper enquiry, the respondents shall be under a legal obligation to hold a further enquiry and find the persons responsible for the same and take appropriate action in the 5 matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.6.2006, as contained in Annexure-6, issued by the respondent Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to him to hold a fresh enquiry and consider the three show-cause replies of the petitioner. Petitioner is also given liberty to file a consolidated show-cause reply to the Civil Surgeon, Darbhanga, if he is so advised, in the matter within one month from to-day. In case, petitioner files fresh consolidated show-cause reply, the same shall also be considered by the respondent-Civil Surgeon who shall pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law within three months thereafter. If the petitioner does not file fresh consolidated reply, in that case, the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents-authorities within four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. After concluding the enquiry and passing final orders in respect of petitioner the Civil Surgeon shall take steps or shall refer the matter to the Director-in-Chief for further enquiry to find the persons responsible in the matter and shall take action accordingly. However If after concluding the enquiry, the Civil Surgeon finds the appointment of the petitioner as valid and genuine, he shall also pass consequential orders for continuance of petitioner and for payment of his salary with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that for the said four 6 months, the petitioner shall not be entitled for his salary. But in case the enquiry does not conclude within the time stipulated as above, petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits of service, including salary, arrears as well as current, from the next day of expiry of the said period. This writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. SKBOSE (J.N.Singh)