ORDER
M.Y. Eqahal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.5.1999, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. A copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application.
2. The petitioner was working as a Chief Cashier in the year 1979 in the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. In 1988 he was promoted to senior Selection Grade. In 1988 the then Principal of the College lodged a written report alleging misappropriation of money by the petitioner. On 26.2.1988 the petitioner was put under suspension. In 1989 the police submitted final form to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the final form and directed to investigate the matter again. However, a charge-sheet was submitted and a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner. However, in 1988 the respondent No. 2, the Director in Chief, Health Services Bihar, Patna, vide his order dated 26.2.1998, revoked the suspension of the petitioner with a direction that a fresh enquiry shall be initiated against the petitioner and he further idirected the respondent No. 3, the Principal of the College to frame charge against the petitioner. The petitioner’s case is that in compliance of the direction of the Director in Chief, Health Service, after framing of charge, a fresh departmental enquiry proceeding was to be initiated against the petitioner, which was never done in the case. It is contended that after serving the memo of charge to the petitioner he submitted his show cause but
no enquiry officer was appointed nor any departmental proceeding was initiated. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2, the Director in Chief, took a decision and directed the Principal of the College to pay the entire subsistence allowance to the petitioner. But all of a sudden the Principal of the College issued the impugned order dated 17.5.1999 terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of charge framed on 10.7.1988.
3. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that in 1988 a preliminary departmental enquiry was conducted by Dr. Roy Sudhir Prasad, Principal of the College, who submitted his report on 25.2.1988 and found prima facie case of misappropriation of Government money. It is stated that the petitioner was found absconding from duty with effect from 26.2.1988 till 2.3.1998. A formal charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 10.6.1988 which was published in the daily news paper and despite best effort the petitioner did hot appear before the Enquiry Committee. Consequently, the matter was investigated ex parte and a report was submitted on 30.4.1992 in which the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. In the meantime, the then Director in Chief passed an order on 26.2.1998 revoking the suspension of the petitioner as well as to initiate a fresh second departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It is stated that the next Director in Chief Dr. Ranjit Ghosh made enquiry into the matter and thereafter forwarded a letter dated 20.5.1997 for taking appropriate action against the petitioner for termination of his services. In pursuance of the said letter the impugned order of termination was passed.
4. From perusal of the impugned order dated 17.5.1999, it appears that the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of charge and the departmental enquiry initiated in 1988 and also on the basis of second show cause notice issued on 28.4.1993. The question, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether such order of termination, on the basis of enquiry conducted in 1988, is justified in law.
5. As noticed above, the Director in Chief, Health Services, by order dated 26.2.1998 revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner and directed for initiation of a
fresh departmental proceeding. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application, which is quoted hereinbelow :–
funs’kky; LokLF; lsok;sa] fcgkj] iVuk A
vkns’k
Jh vy[k
ukjk;.k >k] jksdM+iky] ikVyhiq= fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] /kuckn ds Kkikad 447
fnukad 26-2-1988 }kjk fuyEc fd;k x;k Fkk A
2-
fopkjksijkUr Jh vy[k ukjk;.k >k dks rRdky izHkko ls fuyEcu ls eqä fd;k tkrk
gS A Jh >k dks fuyEcu vof/k dk ns; HkÙkk dk Hkqxrku vxj ugh gqvk gS tks mldk
Hkqxrku gksxk A
3- Jh
vy[k ukjk;.k >k ij foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ iqu% pyk;h tk;sxh A foHkkxh; dkjokbZ ds
QykQy ij gh vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk A
g-@ ih- ds- flag
funs’kd izeq[k LokLF; lsok;sa] fcgkj] iVuk A
Kkikad&22@vk-
5&73@95 189@22@
Lok- iVuk]
fnukad 26-2-1998
izfrfyfi&&izkpk;Z]
ikVyhiq+= fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] /kuckn dks fo:) vkjksi xfBr djus gsrq lHkh vko’;d
vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk fnukad 4-3-1998 dks esjs dk;kZy; d{k esa mifLFkr jgsaxs A
izfrfyfi&&Jh
vy[k ukjk;.k >k] fuyfEcr jksdM+iky] ikVyhiq= fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; /kuckn dks
lwpukFkZ A mUgsa vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 4-3-1998 dks esjs dk;kZy; d{k esa
lHkh vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk vifLFkr jgsa A
izfrfyfi&&dks”kkxkj
inkf/kdkjh /kuckn dks lwpukFkZ izsf”kr A
g-&vLi”V
26-2-1998
funs’kd izeq[k] LokLF; lsok;sa] fcgkj] iVuk
6. In view of the contradictory statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, this Court by order dated 27.3.2001 directed the Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna to file a separate supplementary counter affidavit. In compliance of that order an affidavit was filed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Heath Services on 28.5.2001. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by him is worth to be quoted hereinbelow :–
“3. That. Director-in-Chief Dr. P.K, Singh vide-his letter No. 189 (22) dated 26.2.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) revoked the suspension of Sri Jha and directed the payment of admissible allowance during the period of suspension and to start fresh departmental proceeding against Sri Jha. He also directed the petitioner and the Principal to appear before him along with all records. In the light of above direction, the, petitioner was allowed to join the duly on 2.3.1998. He got full payment from 2.3.1998 to 18.5.1998 for his duties. He was again suspended w.e.f. after noon of 18.5.1998, as he was arrested in connection with the Criminal Case No. 117/88 under Section 409 of the IPC.
4. That Director-in-Chief Dr. Ranjit Ghosh vide his letter No. 149 (22) dated 12.2.1999, forwarded a letter No. 657(22) dated 20.5.1997, for taking action for dismissal of services and for taking action to attach the movable and immovable property of Sri Jha in order to recover this misappropriated Government money. In view of the above letter of Director-in-chief, Principal Medical College. Dhanbad dismissed the petitioner from service vide letter No. 375/PMC dated 17.5.1999.”
7. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that in 1998 an order was passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, revoking the order of suspension and directing initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding. In that view of the matter, it is rather surprising as to how the services of petitioner have been terminated on the basis of charges framed in 1988 and ex parte enquiry conducted in 1993. According to the respondents, the order of termination was issued on the basis of letter 20.5.1997 issued by the Health Department. Government of Bihar to terminate the services of the petitioner. The impugned order of termination is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.
8. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of termination of the services of the, petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed with a fresh departmental proceeding from the stage of service of memo of charge and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Application allowed