IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10703 of 2005 NAFIS AHAMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner: M/S Rajendra Prasad Singh, Nand Kishore Singh Alok Kumar Singh For the Respondent: S.C. I ----------- 5. 14.08.2008 Heard learned counsel fort the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 6.4.2005 from his Class III post. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed in 1984.He continued to work uninterruptedly till issuance of a show cause notice to him on 24.5.2004 to which he replied on 7.6.2004 whereafter the impugned order came to be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from the show cause notice that it did not disclose the alleged irregularity in the appointment or alleged procedural violation in the appointment. The Government letter dated 11.5.2004 sought to be relied upon therein was never made available to the petitioner. The show cause notice held the appointment to be illegal in context of an enquiry already held by the Respondents, the details of which were never furnished to the petitioner, and in this manner only an empty formality of a show cause notice was followed with a predetermined mindset. The petitioner submitted his reply detailing the earlier enquiries held confirming the validity of his appointment when the impugned order has been passed rejecting the cause shown by only stating that it was unsatisfactory without consideration of the earlier enquiries on the - 2 - validity of his appointment. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court that show cause notice did indicate that the appointment was contrary to law and then reliance was sought to be placed on the statutory Rules annexed to the counter affidavit to submit that the Rules were not followed. The law stands well settled that the order of the Government will have to be tested on reasons mentioned in the order itself. It cannot be permitted to be supplemented from the counter affidavit. On the facts present, this Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was extremely vague. The petitioner was not made aware of the grounds of irregularity which he had to meet. The materials were collected in an enquiry behind his back which were not made available to him. From the language of the show cause notice that on an enquiry held, the appointment had been found to be irregular, satisfies this Court that the Respondents were fulfilling an empty formality for the principles of natural justice with a predetermined mind. In reply to the show cause notice, with reference to letter number and date the petitioner specifically stated that validity of the appointment had been twice inquired into by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Parmandal, who found it to be in order. This important defence raised by the petitioner has been dismissed summarily in one line by saying that this reply to the show cause notice was unsatisfactory. The petitioner has been condemned on a vague show cause - 3 - notice on basis of materials now sought to be urged which did not form part of the show cause notice. Another important facet of the principles of natural justice is the giving of reasons. This ensures that there is no arbitrariness and that the authority concerned was acting fairly by consideration of all materials placed before him. The refusal to consider the cause shown by the petitioner as also the earlier enquiry reports dismissed summarily by saying that the explanation was unsatisfactory, satisfies this Court that the impugned order dated 6.4.2005 is arbitrary and cannot be permitted to stand. At this stage, the long period of time for which the petitioner has worked assumes significance. The impugned order dated 6.4.2005 is, accordingly, quashed. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)