D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Petitioner Hare Krishna Singh was appointed on the post of Constable by the authority of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna in April, 1997. The petitioner Shiv Shankar Pandey was also appointed to the post of Constable by the authority of the Deputy Inspector General of Police - cum - Chairman, Selection Board in March, 1986. At the time of their appointment, both of them had qualified in the physical measurement and medical tests and their appointment was made only after they were found fit for the post. Both of them were sent for police training and they successfully completed the training and thereafter both of them obtained the status of Police Constables in permanent cadre. After the re -organization of the State of Bihar, the services of both the petitioners were allocated to the State of Jharkhand. While both the petitioners were enjoying the benefits of their permanent appointment in the Police Cadre, the petitioners were informed that in the year 2002 a general letter was issued from the Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 1046 dated 07.03.2002 declaring therein that the appointment of the petitioners was made by Shri S.K. Saxena, the then Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna in special circumstances and such appointment being illegal on account of the fact that the selection of the petitioners was not made in accordance with the rules of procedure, their appointments were illegal. A decision to dismiss the services of the petitioners and such other constables, who were appointed by the order of the then Director General of Police, was taken. A list of all such appointees was prepared including the names of the present petitioners. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, his counter part in the State of Jharkhand, namely, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi issued a directive to all the concerned Superintendents of Police of take appropriate steps for dismissal of the services of persons whose names figured in the list. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Superintendents of Police under whom the petitioners were employed, terminated the services of the petitioners vide the impugned order namely Annexure -6 in the case of the petitioner Hare Krishna Singh and Annexure -3 in the case of the petitioner Shiv Shankar Pandey. Such termination of their services was made after seven years of continuous service in the case of petitioner Hare Krishna Singh and 18 years of continuous service in the case of the petitioner Shiv Shankar Pandey.
(2.) THE petitioners in these writ applications have challenged the impugned orders of termination of their services (Annexure -6 and Annexure -3 respectively). The main grounds on which the impugned orders have been assailed are that before terminating their services, no reasonable opportunity was given to them to defend their case nor was any departmental proceeding initiated against them on the basis of any charges. It is further pleaded that the appointment of the petitioners cannot be termed as an appointment made against the rules of procedure and therefore illegal, since their appointment was made according to the administrative orders of the Director General of Police on special grounds and the rules framed for appointment on special/compassionate grounds does not require strict adherence to the general procedure for recruitment. In the case of the petitioner Shiv Shankar Pandey, his appointment was made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was also the Chairman of the Selection Board. It is further pleaded that after accepting the petitioners in permanent cadre and having allowed them to work continuously for more than 7 years and 18 years respectively, it is totally unjust and against the principles of natural justice and equity to abruptly terminate the services of the petitioners without giving them any opportunity of being heard against the proposed termination. Such order of termination is arbitrary in view of the fact that even in the State of Jharkhand, appointments of more than 36 constables have been made on special/compassionate grounds on considering their exemplary courage shown on occasions of crisis. Such appointments were made by relaxing the rules of recruitment. Both the petitioners also deserve the same benefits since their appointment was made on special consideration of their exemplary courage which both of them had demonstrated on occasion of crisis. In support of their claim, the petitioners have relied upon the following judgements: (i) Division Bench Judgement of this Court passed in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kamal Chandra Sah in L.P.A. No. 221 of 2008. (ii) Single Bench Judgement of the Patna High Court passed in the case of Md. Manzoor Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors. vide C.W.J.C. No. 12005 of 2006. (iii) Single Bench Judgement of the Patna High Court passed in the case of Kamal Chandra Sah v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2006(3) PLJR 468.(iv) Single Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Md. Suhail Alam v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. vide W.P.(S) No. 2760 of 2006. (v) Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Diwakar Giri v. State of Jharkhand, 2007(1) J.C.R. 412.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken by them is that the dismissal of the petitioners was made by the order of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 1046 dated 07.03.2002 on the ground that their appointment was illegal. On receipt of a communication issued by the Office of Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna of the order of dismissal of the appointees on the ground that their appointment was not made by the Selection Committee, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide his Office Memo No. 1593 dated 29.04.2002, issued a direction to all the Superintendents of Police within the State to take appropriate steps for dismissal of the services of the persons whose names figured in the list enclosed to the letter issued by the Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the concerned Superintendents of Police issued show cause notices to the concerned appointees including the present petitioners calling upon them to submit their show cause replies and to defend themselves. The show cause replies submitted by the petitioners being found not satisfactory, their services were terminated in accordance with Rule 828(b) of the Bihar Police Manual and the impugned orders of dismissal from service were communicated to the petitioners respectively. It is contended that since the appointment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with the rules of procedure and not made on the recommendation of the Appointment Committee, their appointment is ab initio illegal and the petitioners cannot legitimately claim to continue in service. Relying upon several judgements of this Court as also of the Patna High Court and that of the Supreme Court, the respondents have claimed that the termination of the petitioners' services was absolutely legal and proper. The respondents in support of their stand have relied upon the following judgements: (i) Division Bench Judgement of this Court passed in the case of Seema Devi v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(2) JLJR 337. (ii) Single Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Ishwar Bahadur Thapa and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2008(2) JLJR 490. (iii) Supreme Court Judgement in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in : (2006)IILLJ722SC . ;