Termination of services of a government employee without a departmental inquiry violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard before dismissal or removal from service.

S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioner who was in the services of the Civil Court, Munger, has challenged the order No. 34(P) dated 1st April, 1998, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger, whereby and whereunder, his services were terminated w.e.f. 2nd April, 1998.

2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on purely temporary basis in the judgeship of Munger, vide order dated 15th May, 1996, issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger. Such appointment was made subject to production of medical fitness certificate and production of all certificates, testimonials and valid driving licence for verification at the time of joining. On such production, the petitioner joined the services in the Judgeship at Munger and continued to function as Driver.

4. It appears that earlier to his appointment, the petitioner was made accused in one G.R. Case No. 227/85 and convicted under Sec. 323 of I.P.C., vide judgment dated 20th May, 1987, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Munger. Criminal Appeal No. 103/87 preferred against the same was disposed of by learned 2nd Addl Sessions Judge, Munger, wherein while conviction was affirmed, the appellate Court set aside the order of sentence and directed that instead of substantive sentence, the convicts, including petitioner be released on execution of probation bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each, for a period of one year.

5. Against the appellate order, the petitioner moved before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 140/92, which was disposed of on 2nd July, 1992. This Court while disposing of the revision case, observed that the order passed by the appellate Court, directed the petitioner to be on probation for his good conduct to maintain peace. On execution of such bond, it shall not prejudice in the matter of any service, either Government or private or any election.

6. Admittedly, while in service, another Kotwali P.S. Case No. 173/97 has been instituted under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 379, 323, 448, 307 and 337 of I.P.C. along with Sec. 27 of the Arms Act at the instance of informant, namely, Raghunandan Mandal. The petitioner was made one of the accused in the said case, which is pending.

A counter-case with respect to the same occurrence has also been instituted by co-accused persons, vide Kotwali P.S. Case No. 174/97 against the said informant Raghunandan Mandal and others under Secs. 147, 148, 367, 337, 323, 344 and 427 of I.P.C., as well as Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, wherein it is reported alleged occurrence of assault and counter-assault by and against both the parties.

It further appears that a confidential letter was written by one Ashok Mandal of Belan Bazar, Munger on 17th July, 1997 (Annexure HC/A) addressed to the Hon ble the Chief Justice of Patna High Court alleging suppressing of fact and production of forged certificate in the matter of appointment of petitioner. While it was alleged that the petitioner obtained service in the Civil Court, Munger on production of forged certificate, it was also informed that the petitioner is a convict in G.R. Case No. 227/85. He has been made accused in another criminal case and being employee of Civil Court, is making pairvy to the concerned Magistrate and A.D.J.

The aforesaid confidential letter purported to have been written by Ashok Mandal was forwarded to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger for necessary inquiry and comments by High Courts letter No. 5011-Adm. (Misc. Section) dated 26th/27th October, 1997. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger, on such inquiry submitted his report, vide letter No. 3412 dated 6th October, 1997 (Annexure-13). While he held that the allegation made against the petitioner is false, the learned District Judge further observed that the certificate was not forged and the relevant order of conviction