- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1929 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the order of termination of services of the Petitioner -Appellant needs no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: According to the Appellant, his father and grandfather were killed by some extremists at the time of united State of Bihar. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur having come to know about the occurrence, gave some verbal assurance to the Petitioner Appellant that he would be recruited in the Police force on attaining majority. The Petitioner's case is that in 2000 he filed an application before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna for his appointment in Police force which application was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa. Thereupon the Petitioner was appointed as temporary constable w.e.f. 1st May, 2000. However, vide memo dated 25th July, 2004, he was removed from services on the ground that his appointment was illegal. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the facts of the case and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court held that the impugned Order of termination needs no interference by this Court. Mr. S.N.Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, assailed the impugned Judgment and the Order of termination on various grounds. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the order of termination of the services of the Petitioner passed by the Superintendent of Police in the State of Jharkhand is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as he was appointed at the time of undivided State of Bihar. In our view, the submission is wholly misconceived. No doubt, at the time the Bihar was undivided, the then D.G.P., Bihar recommended the case of the Petitioner and forwarded the application to Chaibasa which fall within the State of Jharkhand and the Petitioner was temporarily appointed as constable in the district of Chaibasa which admittedly fall within the State of Jharkhand. In that view of the matter, the appointing authority shall be the competent authority who can terminate the services if it is found that the initial appointment was illegal.
(3.) MR . Pathak next contended that once the Petitioner was appointed as constable, then his termination of services without initiating and holding a regular departmental inquiry is bad in law. The submission has also no leg to stand. It has been well settled that if the initial appointment is found illegal, then a regular departmental inquiry is not to be initiated before terminating the services. In me instant case, a show -cause notice was given to the Petitioner and after finding his explanation unsatisfactory, the impugned order of termination was passed.;