2023 Supreme(Pat) 770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
CWJC Nos. 20636, 961, 4123, 5011, 7498, 13989 14172, 14254, 15213, 16446, 16457, 16482, 17834, 20552, 20610, 20646 of 2021; 10022 of 2019; 3039, 9536, 9676, 9892, 10338 of 2020; 255, 439, 490, 492, 501, 564, 622, 687, 693, 4981, 8020, 12800 of 2022; 354, 2351, 2364, 5912, 6361, 7808 of 2023
(26.9.2023)
Shamima Khatoon (in 20636)
Neelam Kumari (in 10022)
Shanti Kumari (in 3039)
Asha Singh (in 9536)
Meena Singh (in 9676)
Usha Kiran Sinha (in 9892)
Prativa Kumari (in 10338)
Smt. Poonam Kumari (in 961)
Mala Sinha (in 4123)
Shail Kumari (in 5011)
Pushpa Kumari (in 7498)
Sanju Kumari (in 13989)
Geeta Kumari (in 14172)
Dr. Minni Kumari (in 14254)
Kamla Kumari (in 15213)
Ranju Bala Sharan (in 16446)
Abha Rani (in 16457)
Shashi Kala Prasad (in 16482)
Radha Devi (in 17834)
Ranjana Kumari (in 20552)
Sauda Khatun (in 20610)
Ragini Dayal (in 20646)
Sangita Pandey (in 255)
Smt. Rita Rani (in 439)
Madhu Kumari (in 490)
Sadhna Sharma (in 492)
Veena @ Veena Singh (in 501)
Ram Kumari (in 564)
Kanchan Kumari (in 622)
Meera Devi (in 687)
Smt. Tara Singh (in 693)
Rekha Kumari (in 4981)
Kamini Kumari (in 8020)
Usha Kumari Sharma (in 12800)
Nirmala Bharti (in 354)
Pushpalata Sinha (in 2351)
Bansuri Acharya (in 2364)
Smt. Usha Kiran Kumari (in 5912)
Shubhra Rani (in 6361)
Bibha Rani @ Vibha Rani (in 7808)
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Headnote:

Service Law–Under three categories of case petitioners are seeking (I) quashing of orders by which the respondents have forfeited the pension as well as other retiral benefits of the petitioners : (II) setting aside of the impugned orders and the consequential benefits to the petitioners ; (III) against the second show cause notice whereby the petitioners have been made avaliable a copy of inquiry report and have been asked to submit their response to disciplinary authority—Category (I) cases petitioners were given ample opportunity of learning–they were served with the memo of charges and were allowed to participate in the inquiry–they were also served with the inquiry report and were given time to submit their show cause–thus, the principle of natural justice have been fully complied with–no violation of procedure established by law could be shown to the Court–petitioners admit that there was no advertisement in any newspaper they claim that the posts were advertised through the notice pasted in the office of the District Inspectors (DI) but this would not come to their rescue–these are the case of backdoor appointments and hence, the appointment of the petitioners and continuance of service for all these years would not fetch any advantage in their favour–none of the petitioners have in fact dislodged the finding of illegal appointment— they are not able to establish that their appointments were legal and valid in all respects–the credible findings in the CBI report are in fact not contested on any cogent ground–it appears that these appointents are akin to stand on similar footing worth that of class III and class IV employees who were appointed by Dr. Mallick under Tuberculosis Eradiction scheme which were held ex-facie illegal the principle of natural justice stand fully complied with and the petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their continuance over all these years when the inquiry into these appointments were kept pending because all high-ups were allegedly involved in this scam of illegal appointments–from material produced if is found that in category I cases, the proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules was initiated during the service period itself and those were converted after retirement of the petitioners and further in their first round of litigation, though impugned order of Termination was quashed, but at the same time liberty granted to the ROD of concerned Division to proceed afresh–final decision is yet to yet to be take, sofar as the Category - III cases concerned–petitioners under category II are identically situated with the petitioners of the 1st category save and except that in category II, the petitioners have been dismissed/terminated from the services whereas in category I, action has been in terms of Pension Rules–for the reasonings and rationals provided in category - I, it is held that category II, petitoners are also not entitled for any relief–their appointments are found to illegal, arbitrary and capricious and void ab initio–petitioiners in category III should have co-operated in course of inquiry by submitting their response and participation before the Inquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority–instead of doing that, their effort is to somehow prolong the ongoing inquiry and culmination of the disciplinary proceeding–in their cases also, the principle of natural justice is being followed by the state-respondents–there is no reason to interfere with the impugned office memo, the charge and/or inquiry report in the writ application–petitioners directed to participate in the inquiry, the CBI, directed to take the case to a logical end— Director, CBI and the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Education directed to take appropriate action within one month–Writ applications disposed of. (Paras 51, 53, 54, 66, 67, 73 to 77).

CWJC No. 17904/2016 D/- 17.01.2017, 1990 supp SCC 738, (1998) 4 SCC 154, AIR 1999 SC 517, (2005) 6 SCC 636, (2006) 4 SCC 1, 2013 (1) PLJR 964, CWJC 9847/1998 D/- 16.12.2019, (1993) 4 SCC 727, (2020) 15 SCC 466, (1967) 1 SCR 128 = AIR 1967 SC 1071, (1972) 1 SCC 409, (1979) 4 SCC 507, AIR 1988 Pat 26, (2013) 1 PLJR 964 (FB) (1997) 2 SCC 1, W.P. (S) No. 6023/2018 (Jharkhand), (2014) 1 SCC 351, (2004) 8 SCI 579, AIR 1978 SC 851, CWJC 9149/2022 CWJC 3361/2020, (1996) 2 SCC 199–Referred.