Allowed

Renu Kumari and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC19 Jul 2018L.P.A/922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the termination orders. It held that since appointments were made based on certificates later found potentially forged, the authorities must have granted an opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action, relying on the natural justice principles established in the Nirbhay Kumar case. Consequently, the petitioners are to be reinstated, thoug

What did the court decide?

The termination orders were quashed, and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated. Payment of salary and arrears was left dependent on the final outcome of a subsequent enquiry.

Renu Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.922 of 2018

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.279 of 2017

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Renu Kumari, D/o Deo Narayan Das, Wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar, Resident of Village and P.O.- Shembhuar, P.S. and DistrictMuzaffarpur. at Present R/O Village and P.O.- Hansa, P.S.Warisganj, District- Samastipur.

¶6

Mithun Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Sagar Choudhary, Resident of Village and P.O.- Rahimpur Jagdish, P.S. and District- Vaishali.

¶7

... ... Appellant/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Govt of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Muzaffarpur.

¶13

The Block Education Officer, Bandra, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶14

The Member Secretary, Panchayat Secretary, Niyojan Samiti-Cum Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj-Tepari, Block- Bandra, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶15

The Panchayat Secretary-Cum-Member Secretary, Panchayat Niyojan Samiti, Ratsara, Block- Bandra, District- Muzaffarpur.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

======================================================

¶18

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi- AAG 6

¶19

======================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Date : 19-07-2018

¶23

It is stated that the defects pointed out by the office stand removed.

¶24

Delay of 1 year and 123 days in filing of the appeal is condoned and I.A. No. 5058 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Patna High Court LPA No.922 of 2018 dt.19-07-2018

¶26

2/3

¶27

Services of the petitioners were terminated on account of the fact that the certificates produced by them with regard to passing the eligibility test i.e., T.E.T., is a forged document. However, while doing so, opportunity of hearing was not granted and the principles of natural justice were not followed and this court in identical circumstances, in LPA No. 501 of 2017, arising out of an order passed in CWJC No. 277 of 2017 (Ajit Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.11.2017 has held that once the employee has been granted appointment on the basis of the certificates and documents produced by him, in case any adverse action is required to be taken on the ground that the certificates are not admissible for any reason, whatsoever, then opportunity of hearing has to be given to the incumbent and this view was taken on the basis of a judicial pronouncement in the case of Chief Post Master General Vs. Nirbhay Kumar, 2018 (3) P.L.J.R. 344. In this case also identical situation exists inasmuch as appointment of the petitioners has been terminated only because they had produced a certificate which was not admissible for granting appointment to the post in question. Once adverse action was to be taken against the petitioners, the termination should have preceded a procedure known to law i.e., the principles of natural justice. The show

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.922 of 2018 dt.19-07-2018

¶29

3/3

¶30

cause notice or an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioner. This having not been done, we allow the appeal, impugned order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 279 of 2017, and the order passed by the authority terminating the services of the petitioner are quashed. The respondent should reinstate the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The question of payment of salary and arrears for the intervening period shall be dependent on the final outcome of the enquiry to be conducted and the consequential action taken.

¶31

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

¶32

( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶33

K.C.Jha/Uma/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	23.07.2018
Transmission Date	N/A

Renu Kumari and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Kumari and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Shankar Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Namely Abhay Raj, Department Of Excise, Patna and Ors.

Krishna Mohan Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jagannath Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Himachal Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Alam @ Mohammad Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.