- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Director, Employment (Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka) on 31.7.2010 after having remained in services of the respondent-Department of Labour, Employment and Training, since his initial appointment on 7.4.1978. Before retirement of the petitioner the respondent-department issued an order at Annexure-3 dated 14.2.2009 under the signature of Director, Employment and Training directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 36,71,933/- in the Directorate. The said amount was said to be the arrears of salary paid to two persons namely Arbind Kumar Rakesh and Binod Kumar Singh for the period from 8.1.1992 and 3.1.1992 to 7.5.2008 and 6.5.2008 with 9% interest totaling Rs. 36,71,933/-. It was further indicated in the said order that the said recovery was being made in the light of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1820 of 1993 and L.P.A. No. 20 of 1998 pursuant to which the said two persons were paid the arrears of their salary as aforesaid alongwith 9% interest. The said order also indicated that petitioner was responsible for making illegal appointment of the two persons and upon advise of the Finance Department amount is being recovered.
(2.) It is not in dispute that before the order of recovery no show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner on 7.7.1992 a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide Annexure-1 for having made illegal appointments of seven persons on the post of clerk while he was posted as In-charge Assistant Director, Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, Jamshedpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the said disciplinary proceeding ended in his exoneration by the resolution dated 8.3.1995 of the respondent-department which is at Annexure-2. However, the said resolution also referred that seven appointments were cancelled by the department and in that view of the matter, the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority by the resolution dated 8.3.1995. It also appears that persons whose appointment were cancelled namely Arbind Kumar Rakesh and Binod Kumar Singh preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1820 of 1993(R) in which the respondents also took a stand that the services of the said persons were terminated after an inquiry and after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the said writ petition, learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, after referring to the facts of the case, affidavits exchanged and after considering the stand of the rival parties allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 12.12.1997, relevant paras 7 and 8 are quoted hereinbelow:-- Para 7. Let us take the worst view against the petitioners that their appointments were illegal as the appointing authority had no jurisdiction and the proper procedure had not been followed but still then up to 10.2.1994 the petitioners should be construed as in service and when the order dated 10.2.1994 is found to be devoid of legality because of not giving any chance to the petitioners for substantiating their cases then they should be construed as still in service and they are entitled to get their salaries since the date of joining. Para 8 In that view of the matter, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the termination order or the cancellation of appointment order dated 10.2.1994 and 7.7.1992 are hereby quashed having no force at all in the eye of law and the petitioners should be construed in service and they should be paid their salaries regularly till the . decision is arrived at legally regarding the legality or validity of their appointment according to the law. The arrear salaries must be made available to the petitioners within a period of three months with 9% interest. It is made clear that this court has not entered in to the merit regarding legality/or validity of the appointment of the petitioners. If authorities feel it proper that the petitioners are not being properly appointed and their appointments were illegal on the face of it, then they are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners according to law.
(3.) The Government went in appeal which was dismissed in L.P.A. No. 20 of 1998 (R) for non-prosecution on 27.8.2007. Apparently, those two persons were therefore allowed to submit their joining and were paid arrears of salary with 9% interest as directed by the learned Single Judge.;