JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant application has been preferred by the original-petitioner-Rajesh Kumar Singh, for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi communicated by letter No.4095 dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure-19) whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the original-petitioner has been rejected. It has also been prayed for quashing of the Memo No.93 dated 31.10.2008 (Annexur-16) and office order as contained in Memo No.7352 dated 01.11.2008 (Annexure-17) issued by the Superintendent of Police, (Vigilance) Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the original-petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.10.2008.

3. After the death of the original-petitioner the name of his widow and other legal heirs were substituted pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2017 passed in the instant case.

4. The instant case has a chequered history. The original-petitioner was appointed as Constable by office Order No.23/90 dated 27.01.1990. After his appointment the original-petitioner was sent for Constable and Traffic Police Training at Traffic Training School, Jamshedpur. Thereafter, in the year, 1993, he was declared successful in departmental examination held in the year, 1993 and was also issued a certificate. After 12 years of his service, the original-petitioner was sent for PTC/ACP training in which also he was declared successful.

All of sudden, in the year, 1997 the Government of Bihar has taken a decision by Office Order as contained in Memo No. 140 dated 25.02.1997 to terminate the services of eight persons whose appointment was said to be illegal and accordingly, the then Superintendent of Police of the respective districts were directed to ensure that those eight persons are terminated. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand Government vide Memo No.1389 dated 23.10.2003 also directed the concerned Superintendent of Police of different districts giving the names of nine persons saying that they have been illegally appointed by one Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, the then Inspector General of Police, just prior to his superannuation and as such, the appointment of those nine persons are illegal and the respective Superintendent of Police were directed to ask for a show cause from them.

The original-petitioner being aggrieved by the said memo filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 5300 of 2003, which has been disposed of directing the respondent not to terminate the services of the original-petitioner in a routine manner and it has also been directed to take any action after giving proper show cause mentioning the reasons for the proposed termination. Thereafter, the original-petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 14.11.2003 to which he replied. Thereafter, he was issued another show-cause notice dated 01.03.2004. Subsequently, the original-petitioner was once again issued show-cause notice as contained in Memo No. 1519/GS dated 22.09.2006 directing him to file a reply as to why his services be not terminated on the same set of charges i.e. his appointment is illegal as he was appointed by Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, who was not competent to appoint him. The original-petitioner filed its reply to show-cause on 01.10.2006, denying the allegations leveled against him stating therein that he was appointed in accordance with law and as per the provisions of Police Manual. However, the show-cause reply was not considered and the petitioner was terminated vide order as contained in Memo No. 1590 dated 09.10.2006 issued by the Inspector General of Police. Pursuant to that, the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Bureau issued a departmental order informing the original-petitioner that he has been terminated w.e.f. 11.10.2006.

The original-petitioner immediately preferred an appeal against the order of termination dated 09.10.2006 before the appellate Authority and when no action was taken, he preferred writ a