At, High Court of Bihar
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARAYAN ROY
For the Appearing Parties: -----------
NARAYAN ROY, J.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 4, issued vide memo No. 26 dated 5.1.2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioner and others have been dismissed from services for want of their first date of appointment.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially was engaged to work on daily wages since 1980 and thereunder he was considered along with others for regular appointment on Class IV posts, namely, Nal Koop Khalasi, by duly constituted committee on 3.2.1983 and the committee finding them eligible for the posts of Nal Koop Khalasi appointed them on substantive basis vide order, as contained in annexure 2, and the petitioner thereafter continued to work on the post of Nal Koop Khalasi and he was promoted to the post of Nal Koop Mistiy vide order dated 11.1.1993. In the meantime, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and similarly situated persons to furnish the date of their first appointment. The petitioner furnished the date of his first appointment, which would be evident from annexure 5, but the authorities without any rhyme or reason dismissed him and others from services by the order impugned without holding any inquiry in the matter.
(4.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but no cogent reasons have been given to justify the order impugned, as contained in annexure 4.
(5.) Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record that the petitioner initially was engaged to work on daily wages with effect from 1980 and thereafter he was appointed on substantive basis on Class IV post in the year 1983 and thereafter he was promoted in the year 1993. It also appears that the petitioner continued in services for more than 20 years and now he has been dismissed from services de hors the procedures and law. It is discernible from the order impugned that the petitioner has been dismissed only for want of date of his first appointment. The respondents are custodian of the service records of ifs employees. Annexures 2 and 3 are the documents on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on substantive basis and thereafter he was promoted. These records, obviously, therefore, must be available before the authorities to reckon the length of service of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on substantive basis along with others by a duly constituted committee as far back as in the year 1983.
(6.) Besides all these aspects of the matter. It appears that even no formal inquiry was held to ascertain the illegality committed in the engagement of the petitioner at the initial stage nor sufficient opportunity was given to him to put forth his claim before the authorities.
(7.) In view of the findings recorded above, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 4, is held to be unreasonable arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction and also violative of the principles of Natural Justice. Long continuance of the petitioner at the same
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
time for about 20 years also attracts the principles of Equity. (8.) For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, order impugned, as contained in annexure 4, so far the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and he is directed to be reinstated on his substantive post with all. his consequential benefits. No order as to costs.