- (1.) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner prays for quashing a portion of the memo dated 8.9.2003 (Annexure -14) issued by the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which the salary of the petitioner and others have been ordered to be kept in abeyance on the basis of an order dated 8.9.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The ground for passing the said impugned order appears to be that the petitioner is said to have been illegally appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 32 (thirty two) persons have been included in the impugned order but this Writ Petition is confined only to the petitioner. By reason of an Amendment Application, registered as IA No. 340 of 2004, the petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the memo No. 203 dated 9.2.2004 as contained in An -nexure -16 of the said Amendment Application terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was found to be forged. The petitioner also prays for quashing the letter dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure 17 of the said Amendment Application) communicating to the petitioner, the decision of the concerned authority taken on 9.2.2004 directing the petitioner to hand over charge to one Smt. Pramila Soren. The petitioner also makes a prayer that the first information report lodged pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2004 be kept in abeyance.
(2.) THE short facts, which are necessary to be taken note of are that the petitioner and others were duly appointed against a sanctioned vacant post of Class III vide memo dated 15.12.1984 issued by the Civil Surgeon -cum -Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi vide Annexure -1 appended to the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training from time to time; whereafter, by an order dated 5.8.1988, he was transferred to Pakuria in Sahebganj vide Annexure -2. Two years thereafter, on 2.3.1990, the petitioner was informed that it had been learnt that his appointment was illegal and therefore, he was directed to present himself with all necessary papers on 16.4.1990 in the Office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner appeared on 16.4.1990 and again, on 14.8.1991. Four years thereafter, in the year 1995, a decision was taken to conduct an inquiry into the alleged illegal appointments and a list was prepared asking the persons mentioned therein to file their respective explanations. According to the petitioner, his name was not included in that list. The petitioner continued working but, on 11.5.1996, by Annexure 7, he along with others were asked to submit their letters of appointment in the District Headquarters for purposes of an inquiry. The petitioner states that he submitted all required documents showing that he was validly appointed, whereafter, on 4.9.1996, the respondents issued a direction in relation to the payment of salary of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that these documents establish that his appointment was found to be genuine.
(3.) AFTER a lapse of eight months, the petitioner again received a memo dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure -9) by which, he along with others, were again asked to submit the letters of appointment etc. for purposes of conducting an inquiry. The petitioner submits that he again submitted these documents and on 5.11.1998, he was once again directed to appear in person vide Annexure 10 along with the concerned relevant documents. The petitioner submits that he again appeared and submitted all necessary documents and in the year 1999 vide Annexure 11, a list of 61 illegally appointed persons was published, but the name of the petitioner was not included in the 1999 list. Yet, he was once again directed to appear and produce documents. Facing so much harassment, the petitioner filed WP (S) No. 3223 of 2001. By an order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure 12), one of us, disposed off the Writ Petition remanding the matter to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana Division directing him to determine as to whether they would like to make any inquiry relating to the legality and propriety of the appointment of the petitioner or not. It was further directed to conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which, the respondents were prohibited to make further inquiry in respect to the legality and propriety of the appointment of the petitioner, made 16 -1/2 years ago. It was also observed that if the respondents chose to proceed with the inquiry, then they were to hear and inform the petitioner.;