AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Challenge, in this writ application, is to the impugned notice dated-21.06.2010 (Annexure-8), whereby the petitioner
has been called upon to submit his explanation as to why a proceeding should not be initiated against him on the charge that he had obtained his
appointment on the basis of a forged letter of appointment.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistant way back in 1988 but some
years later, on the basis of some complaint, alleging that the petitioner''s appointment was illegal, an enquiry was conducted by the concerned
authorities of the Respondents and after completing the enquiry, the conclusion drawn by the authorities was that the appointment of the petitioner
did not suffer from any illegality. Learned Counsel refers in this context to Annexure-1.
Learned Counsel adds that again a few years later, upon receiving similar nature of allegations, a fresh enquiry was again conducted by the
authorities concerned and this time too, they had arrived at the same conclusion that the petitioner''s appointment did not suffer from any illegality
or impropriety. Learned Counsel refers in this context to Annexure-6.
The present grievance of the petitioner is that although the entire controversy has been closed long ago but after more than ten years, on the
basis of a anonymous allegation petition, the matter is sought to be raked up again by the concerned authorities, who in the impugned notice, have
already concluded that the appointment letter of the petitioner was forged and the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and have virtually
decided to terminate the services of the petitioner and the present notice is only an eye-wash by way of a purported compliance of the Rules of
procedure.
Learned Counsel for the State, while referring to the statements contained in the counter affidavit, informs that a complaint has been received
against the petitioner, which questions the very legality of the petitioner''s appointment and therefore, the Respondents-authorities have every right
to conduct an enquiry and such enquiry may be conducted any number of times till proper satisfaction is arrived at. Learned Counsel informs, by
referring in this context to a letter, dated-03.06.2010 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit), that before coming to any conclusion and before
issuing the impugned notice, the Respondents-authorities had addressed a letter to their counter-parts in the State of Bihar and the response
received had indicated that the letter of appointment on the basis of which the petitioner has secured his appointment, was not dispatched at all
since the fact of dispatch of any such letter of appointment has not been mentioned in the Dispatch Register. Learned Counsel assures that if any
action is taken against the petitioner, the same would be in accordance with due procedure of law and not otherwise. Learned Counsel informs
further that the petitioner by the impugned notice has merely been asked to submit his show-cause replies and if the petitioner is able to satisfy by
his show-cause replies, then no further proceeding may be initiated against him at all.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it appears that the Respondents
authorities, upon receiving a letter of complaint and upon making some preliminary enquiry, have inferred sufficient material for conducting an
enquiry against the petitioner and in contemplation of the proposed enquiry, the impugned notice has been issued. Depending upon the explanations
offered by the petitioner, the Authorities concerned would be able to decide whether a departmental proceeding should be initiated or not.
Needless to add that if a proceeding is initiated on such charges which if proved, may entail major punishment, the procedure as laid down under
the relevant Rules would have to be followed. The mere fact that two previous enquiries were conducted on the same issue with results declared in
favour of the petitioner, would not deprive the Authorities concerned to conduct a fresh enquiry, if certain material evidences relevant to the
controversial issue could not be considered earlier.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit his replies to the impugned
showcause notice and with corresponding direction to the Respondents-authorities to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner''s show-cause
replies.