- (1.) HEARD Mr. K. N. Prasad. Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi. G.P.I for the Respondents.
(2.) THE Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.1999 passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Service Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka by which a direction has been issued upon the Civil Surgeon to terminate the services of the Petitioners within one week and submit compliance report. Subsequently by order dated 29.03.2000 the aforementioned order dated 03.12.1999 was given effect to by the Civil Surgeon, Godda terminating services of the Petitioner and others and by reason of the said order it was further directed to recover the amounts received by them. (I. In the Counter Affidavit, that has been filed by the Respondent No.5 (Civil Surgeon, Godda), it has been stated at paragraph 8 that a large number of persons had been illegally appointed in the Department of Health ignoring the due process of law as a result whereof the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar by his letter dated 19.06.1999 had directed the matter to be inquired for purpose of taking appropriate action in relation to appointments made after 01.01.1980. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana directed the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 04.07.2001 to do the needful. It has further been stated at paragraph 9 of the Counter Affidavit that thereafter the Deputy Commissioner constituted a two members committee comprising of the Additional Collector, Godda and Civil Surgeon, Santhal Pargana, by his letter dated 12.07.2001 and the Deputy Commissioner also demanded a report on five points by his letter dated 11.08.2001. Subsequently the matter could not be completed and it has been stated at paragraphs 10 and 11 that since the matters need to be inquired into and since it relates to very long period relating to different districts, it will, therefore, be time consuming. Thus from what is apparent from the Counter Affidavit is that the services were terminated on 29.03.2000, i.e., prior to the constitution of the committee by the Deputy Commissioner and also before any final report could be submitted by the said committee. At paragraph 10 it has also specifically been stated that inquiry will be time consuming and since it relates to a very distant period involving different districts "it will take time".
(3.) THUS , it is, therefore, absolutely clear that the Respondents acted in utter haste and terminated the services of the Petitioners without waiting for the report of the committee indicated above.;