Ramesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.2.2009 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.

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. 1.5.2000. However, vide memo dated 25.7.2004, 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.

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.

Be that as it may, admittedly, according to the petitioner, his father and grandfather alleged to have been killed by extremists in 1983 when he

was minor and he was given appointment in 2000 i.e. after 17 years. There is no law or procedure which gives such relaxation for giving

employment after 17 years on the ground that his father or grandfather alleged to have been killed by the extremists. Again and again the Supreme

Court in series of judgments one of them is reported in Rajinder Saini Vs. State of Punjab, has held that even in the case of an employee dies in

harness, employment should not be provided to any dependent after attaining majority.

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio decided by the Supreme Court, we do not find any error in the

impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed.