- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant State is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.01.2009 in W.P. (S) No. 33 of 2009. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the petitioner -respondent No. 1 and set aside the order dated 15th September, 2008 and 19th September, 2008. It will be appropriate to first give the facts in brief. The writ petitioner in the writ petition pleaded that he was appointed on the post of Teacher on the basis of office order No. 413 dated 10th September, 1974, a copy of which has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure -1 and thereafter, straightway stated that, vide letter dated 15th September, 2008 the District Superintendent for Education -cum -Sub Divisional Education Officer, Chatra directed the respondent No. 4, Block Education Extension Officer, Simaria, not to take the services of the petitioner as he has resigned from the post of Teacher in 1976. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of said letter dated 15th September, 2008. The petitioner then stated that vide another letter No. 1313 dated 15th September, 2008, the same authority itself further directed the Principal, Middle School, Jabra, Simaria Block to ask the petitioner to deposit the amount of his salary which he has drawn illegally after submitting his resignation in the year 1976 and, thereafter, vide letter No. 90 dated 19th September, 2008, it was conveyed that the petitioner 'sservices have been terminated with effect from 15th September, 2008. The petitioner 'scontention is that the petitioner demanded from the respondent State the copy of the alleged resignation which, according to the writ petitioner, he did not submit. The petitioner then submitted that the respondents, without any show cause notice in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and without giving any opportunity of being heard, terminated the services of the petitioner only because of the allegation that long back in the year 1976 i.e., 32 years bock, the petitioner submitted his resignation. The petitioner, therefore, had challenged the above orders on the ground that principle of natural justice has been violated.
(3.) IT appears from the impugned order that the writ petition of the petitioner has been allowed as, on behalf of the State, consent was given for deciding the writ petition at the admission stage and it appears from the record of the writ petition that no reply was even filed on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge observed in the impugned order that there is no reference of even the date of the resignation and also proceeded to observe that so called letter of resignation of 1976 has been sought to be used after 32 years by the respondent State, which clearly indicates towards arbitrariness and illegality, which cannot be sustained. In this background, the orders impugned were set aside. Hence the State has preferred this appeal.;