IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2459 of 2007 Shambhu Sharan Pal, son of late Shri Kusheshwar Pal, resident of village Dudhpura, P.O. and P.S. Samastipur, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Samastipur 3. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur 4. Principal, Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga … Respondnets ---------------------------------- 3. 24.8.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to propriety of the impugned order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 18.11.2006, as contained in Annexure 10, this Court is satisfied that the principles of natural justice were not followed in letter and spirit while passing the aforementioned order. Admittedly the petitioner was subjected to an allegation of producing a forged experience certificate allegedly issued from Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital at the time of his initial appointment. The petitioner on being subjected to such an allegation had taken a specific defence that his certificate was not forged and to that extent he had assailed the correctness of the report submitted by the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital in his letter no. 29 dated 5.1.2004. The appointing authority who was himself conducting such enquiry against the petitioner had thereafter again referred the matter to the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College vide his letter No. 64 dated 4.9.2006 (Annexure ‘B’) and it appears from the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18.9.2006 that in 2 response to the aforementioned query of the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College had again reiterated his earlier report as with regard to the certificate of experience of the petitioner being forged as is again apparent from the second show cause notice dated 18.9.2006. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that when the second show cause notice dated 18.9.2006 was issued by the Civil Surgeon he had also got a First Information Report instituted against the petitioner on 19.9.2006, the next day for obtaining appointment in Government service by producing a forged document leading to institution of Bangara (Tajpur) P.S.Case No. 291/2006 dated 19.9.2006. The petitioner in fact claims that as he was named accused in a non-bailable offence, he could not have appeared before the Civil Surgeon in response to the show cause notice dated 18.9.2006 at least till he had obtained anticipatory bail in the month of February, 2007. His grievance, however, is that the impugned order of punishment came to be passed on 18.11.2006 well before the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail in the aforementioned criminal case. Counsel for the State would submit that once it was established beyond doubt from the records that the petitioner had produced a forged certificate of his experience at the time of seeking his appointment, there would be no question of holding a departmental proceeding and that the appointing authority, i.e. Civil Surgeon had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 3 True it is that a formal departmental proceeding by way of framing of charge and leading of oral or documentary evidence by appointing an Enquiry Officer is not a condition precedent in all the cases but then even when the appointing authority himself proceeds to hold an enquiry he will have to abide by the principles of natural justice. In the present case admittedly the petitioner had denied the charge of producing the forged certificate and to that extent he had also questioned the correctness of the first report of the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College. If thereafter the Civil Surgeon on the request of the petitioner or even otherwise had sent the matter to the Principal of Darbhanga Medical College for re-verification of the certificate of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon him to supply copy of the second report of the Principal, D.M.C.H. before taking any action and to that extent the second show cause notice without supplying the document, which was collected behind the back of the petitioner, cannot be approved. This Court is also in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prejudiced in defending himself from 19.9.2006 onwards on account of pendency of the criminal case having apprehension of being arrested. There seems to be thus sufficient justification for the petitioner in not responding to the second show cause notice dated 18.9.2006. This Court having come to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice were not followed before terminating the service of the petitioner will have no option but to quash the 4 impugned order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 18.11.2006 and remit the matter back to the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur to proceed from the stage of second show cause notice dated 18.9.2006. It is made clear that the Civil Surgeon of Samastipur District will supply the petitioner copy of second verification report as referred to in the second show cause notice dated 18.9.2006, whereafter the petitioner will file his comments/ reaction to the second verification report and to that extent the petitioner may also lead evidence in support of the fact that he had undergone such training course in Darbhanga Medical College. The Civil Surgeon, Samastipur having afforded such opportunity to the petitioner would also record his tentative finding and the petitioner will be given an opportunity to show cause against such finding of the Civil Surgeon, whereafter the Civil Surgeon will take his final decision after considering the defence that may be taken by the petitioner. It is made clear that as the impugned order has been set aside only on the ground of principles of natural justice and the matter is to be re-enquired in the manner indicated above, the petitioner will not stand reinstated in service till a final decision is taken by the Civil Surgeon nor the petitioner will be entitled to any financial benefit till he is fully exonerated by the Civil Surgeon. At the same time it is also clarified that since the proceeding in question has been initiated prior to filing of the criminal case against the petitioner the same will not be now clubbed with the fate of the pending criminal case and a final order as indicated 5 above will be communicated to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/