Allowed

Ramanand Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC7 Aug 2012CWJC/13414/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the termination order was unsustainable due to failure to produce original appointment documents. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Civil Surgeon to produce originals and pass a spe

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.04.2006 set aside. Matter remanded to Civil Surgeon for fresh order within two months. No reinstatement ordered.

Ramanand Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.13414 of 2012 (2) dt.07-08-2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13414 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Ramanand Prasad Singh Son Of Late Bhairo Prasad Resident Of Villagee - Mora Tal, P.S. - Bodh Gaya District - Gaya

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Health Service, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad 4. The In-Charge Medical Officer Additional Primary Health Centre, Okari, Jehanabad

¶7

.... .... Respondent/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra SC-21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

02 07-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶10

State.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.04.2006 terminating his services from the post of Medical Lab Technician. Earlier he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7768 of 2006 questioning the same. On 10.02.2011 it was disposed granting liberty to approach a One Man Committee constituted by the Court. Unfortunately for him, the Committee had been wound up by that time and therefore the fresh writ application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that forgery is a question of fact. The petitioner had produced a self attested copy of his appointment letter no. 107(25) dated

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.13414 of 2012 (2) dt.07-08-2012

¶14

¶15

28.03.1991. The impugned order states that the photo copy of another letter no. 107 (25) dated 08.03.1991 had been produced by the authorities in which his name did not figure at serial no. 66 but that it contained the name of one Sri Suryadeo Prasad. There is no explanation why the original was not produced by the respondents.

¶16

Counsel for the State submits that there is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner came to be appointed in 1991 by following a procedure in accordance with law by open advertisement and competitive selection.

¶17

Pursuant to the termination of his service, a first information report appears to have been lodged also. The petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial. The manner in which the authorities of the State have conducted themselves in the criminal prosecution is very unfortunate to say the least. It is considered proper to observe that the Secretary, Department of Health shall adequately examine why officials of the State did not discharge their obligations to the State by appearing and properly deposing in the criminal trial, irrespective of what the conclusion may have been. The acquittal by default, cannot be of benefit to the petitioner. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that forgery is a question of fact. The letter of appointment dated 08.03.1991 is not individual to the petitioner, it

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.13414 of 2012 (2) dt.07-08-2012

¶19

¶20

contains a list of several names in what appears to be running to a total of 144. The production of a photo copy of the same by the petitioner is understandable. It not being an individual appointment letter, but an office order, the original shall necessarily be available in the file of the respondents. There had to be some reason why the original was not produced by the authorities and a finding recorded by the Civil Surgeon to that effect. Photo copies of documents whether presented by the petitioner or the respondents, suffice it to say, are capable of various permutations and combinations. If the original is not produced from the person in whose custody it is, there has to be an explanation for the same before the photo copy can be accepted as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Even if the provisions of the Act be not strictly applicable there had to be some semblance of a suggestion for the same.

¶21

The manner in which the decision has been arrived at in the impugned order is therefore held to be not sustainable. The order dated 26.04.2006 is set aside. Since the flaw is in the decision making process and the grounds if correct are serious, no reinstatement can be ordered at this stage. That is a mater which has to be left open for consideration after a fresh decision is taken in accordance with law.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.13414 of 2012 (2) dt.07-08-2012

¶23

¶24

The matter is remanded to the Civil Surgeon-cumChief Medical Officer, Jehanabad. He shall call for the original appointment order no. 107 (25) whether it be dated 08.03.1991 or 28.03.1991 as the case may be and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order.

¶25

Let such order be passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶26

The application is allowed.

¶27

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶28

Md. Ibrarul/-

Ramanand Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hajrat Ansari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Renu Devi Vs The Vice Chancellor T.m.bhagalpur Univeersity and Ors.

Dr. Raj Kishore Mehra Vs The Magadh University and Ors.

Sri Krishna Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramgati Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gorakh Nath Upadhyaya Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.