IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4697 of 2010
1. RENU KUMARI D/O SHRI YAMUNA RAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM
KACHAHARI, DUMARI, BLOCK- SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM
3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM, DISTT.-
ROHTAS
4. THE S.D.O., SASARAM null P.O. AND P.S. SASARAM, DISTT.- ROHTAS
5. THE B.D.O., SHEOSAGAR BLOCK P.O. AND P.S. SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.-
ROHTAS
6. THE MUKHIA, DUMARI GRAM PANCHAYAT DUMARI, BLOCK- SHEOSAGAR,
DISTT.- ROHTAS
7. THE SARPANCH, DUMARI GRAM PANCHAYAT P.O. - DUMARI, BLOCK-
SHEOSAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS
-----------
2/ 04/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner who claims to have been
appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery at
Dumari Panchayat in Rohtas is aggrieved by the
termination of his service by orders dated 30.10.2009
and 17.2.2010 on the ground that he was not a resident
of Dumari Panchayat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he applied in the prescribed manner enclosing his
residence certificate that he was a resident of Dumari
Panchayat not only in his application but also at the time
of counseling. These facts were fully considered by the
authorities and after their satisfaction the petitioner was
selected and appointed on 22.11.2007 whereafter he was
called for training also. His original documents prior
-2-
thereto were examined on 19.11.2007. The service has
then been terminated without enquiry or show cause
notice as aforesaid and direction for return/recovery of
salary has been issued.
Learned counsel for the State is unable to
demonstrate from the recitals in the impugned order that
any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner,
served upon him and only whereafter the order has been
passed.
Under Rule-5 of the Bihar Gram Kutchery
Secretary (Appointment, Service Conditions and Duties)
Rules, 2007 it was a mandatory condition that the
applicants had to be a resident of the concerned
Panchayat. Once the petitioner was appointed by the
respondents, a presumption is there that official acts
were properly performed and his qualifications were
properly examined under Section-114(e) for the Indian
Evidence Act. The presumption is certainly rebuttable,
but subject to compliance with the principles of natural
justice.
There is no discussion in the impugned orders
that any show cause notice had been issued to the
petitioner before termination. It is the specific assertion of
the petitioner in paragraph-13 of the writ application that
the order was in violation of the principles of natural
-3-
justice.
The impugned orders dated 30.10.2009 and
17.2.2010 are accordingly set aside. The petitioner
stands reinstated, but without prejudice to the rights of
the respondents to proceed appropriately before the Sub-
divisional Officer under Rule-12, appeal against which
shall lie to the aggrieved before the District Magistrate
under Rule-30.
The application stands allowed.
KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)
