- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has come against a show cause notice dated 12th May, 2011 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Chhotanagpur Circle, Ranchi, by which he has been asked to furnish his reply as to why administrative action be not taken against him for having obtained appointment letter in the name of Mahesh Kumar and why salary received on such name be not recovered from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was engaged in daily wages under the respondent -Building Construction Department in view of the decision taken by the respondent -Department, vide Annexure 1 dated 6.8.2004. Thereafter his services were regularized on the post of Choukidar cum Treasury Guard on 10.6.2005, vide Annexure 2 issued by the Superintending Engineer of the concerned Circle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having discharged his duty the petitioner, however, on 5.10,2006, after the order of regularization, made a request for correction of his name. He also submitted an affidavit along with certificates, vide Annexure 4 series. He again represented for correction of his name, vide Annexure 6 dated 21.7.2009 before the Secretary, Building Construction Department. The Under Secretary, Building Construction Department sought information from the Executive Engineer, respondent no.5 about the correct name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 submitted his report, which is contained in Annexure 9 dated 4.2.2010 as also vide Annexure 11 dated 17.3.2010 stating that Mahesh Kumar and Mahesh Mishra are the same person, son of late Ramanand Mishra. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar mistake in respect of Sri Sanju Kumar was corrected by the respondents, vide Annexure 14 dated 16.8.2005. He also submits that the respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which the aforesaid facts relating to the information sent by the respondent no.5 vide Annexure 9 and 11 dated 4.2.2010 and 17.3.2010 have not been denied. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with an apprehension that the respondent -Superintending Engineer may pass an adverse order against him. The salary of the petitioner has also been stopped by the respondent -Department in the meantime.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have appeared and filed their counter affidavit stating that the regularisation order was issued in respect of Mahesh Kumar and the petitioner by furnishing his other certificates and affidavit has sought to change the name as Mehesh Mishra for which he has been issued show cause notice.;