M.Y Eqbal, J.:— This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 29-10-2004 passed in W.P (S) No. 5705 of 2003 (reported in 2005 AIR Jhar HCR 322 : 2005 Lab IC 983) whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order as contained in Memo dated 8-9-2003 by which the salary of the respondent was stopped and also the order dated 9-2-2004 by which the services of the respondent was terminated, on the ground that his appointment was found to be forged and illegal.

2. The case of the respondent, inter alia, was that he along with others was duly appointed against sanctioned and vacant Class-III post in the year 1984 vide Memo dated 15-12-1984 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi. The respondent was, thereafter, sent for training from time to time and thereafter by order dated 5-8-1988 he was transferred to Pakuria in Sahibganj district. Two years thereafter on 2-3-1990, the respondent was informed that his appointment made in the year 1984 was illegal. Consequently, the respondent was directed to produce necessary papers on 16-4-1990 in the office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahibganj. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter, the respondent appeared on 16-4-1990 and 14-8-1990 and produced all the documents. Four years thereafter in 1995, a decision was taken to conduct inquiry into the alleged illegal appointment and a list was prepared asking the persons to file their respective explanation. According to the respondent, his name was not included in that list. Consequently, the respondent continued working since 1984. But after 12 years, the respondent was again asked on 11-5-1996 to submit his letter of appointment in the district headquarters for the purpose of inquiry. The respondent said to have submitted all required documents showing that he was validly appointed. Thereafter on 4-9-1996, the authorities of the appellant issued a direction in relation to payment of salary to the respondent since the appointment of the respondent was found to be genuine. Curiously enough, after lapse of 8 months, the respondent again received a Memo dated 9-5-1997 by which he along with others was again asked to submit letter of appointment for the purpose of conducting inquiry. The respondent said to have again submitted the documents and as per the direction, he appeared in person before the authorities on 5-11-1998. Again in 1999, a list of 61 illegally appointed persons was published, but the name of the respondent was not included in that list also. Notwithstanding that, the respondent was again directed to appear and produce documents. Being so much harassed, he filed a writ petition being W.P (S), No. 3223 of 2001 which was disposed of on 24-7-2001 by this Court remanding the matter to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Paraganas Division directing him to determine as to whether they would to make an inquiry relating to legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent. It was further directed to conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they were prohibited from making further inquiry with respect to the legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent made 16½ years ago.

3. Further case of the respondent is that the order dated 24-7-2001 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition was brought to the notice of the appellants and thereafter on 13-8-2001 the respondent was directed to file reply to certain queries which he submitted on 25-8-2001. The respondent was again directed to submit a list of documents which was also complied with. Without any inquiry, the respondent was communicated the impugned order vide letter dated 8-9-2003 that his salary has been kept in abeyance. The respondent (writ petitioner) moved this Court and challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being W.P (S) No. 5705 of 2003. The appellant (respondent No. 7) filed a counter-affidavit stating that a thorough inquiry was made and it was found that the respondent along with 31 others was appointed in an illegal manner. It was also stated that on inquiry it was found that the appointment letter of the respondent was forged. The learned Single Judge after considering the affidavit and after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition holding that in the earlier order passed in W.P(S) No. 3223 of 2001 a specific direction was issued to determine as to whether the appellant would like to hold an inquiry and if so, they shall conclude the inquiry within six months failing which the appellant was prohibited from making any further inquiry with respect to legality and propriety of the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid order, the appellant conducted the inquiry much beyond the aforesaid time-limit and without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent, passed order terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that his letterof appointment appears to be forged. The said impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C-II, assailed the (judgment as being contrary to law and facts on record. Learned counsel submitted that a person appointed on the basis of forged letter of appointment has no right of hearing more or less right of departmental inquiry before terminating his services. Learned counsel submitted that merely because inquiry was not completed within six months as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, that cannot be a ground for quashing the order of termination.

5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly the order of termination on the basis of alleged inquiry was passed without giving any notice to the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent was also not called upon to participate in the inquiry which was allegedly conducted after about more than 16 years from the date of appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that on several occasions, the letter of appointment and other documents were verified by the authorities of the appellants and a direction was issued for payment of salary after having been satisfied about the genuineness of the appointment of the respondent. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the action of the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent was wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

6. As noticed above, the respondent was appointed in 1984 and thereafter, time to time he was transferred from one post to another post. In 1994, for the first time the appellant doubted the propriety of the appointment of the respondent and he was called upon to produce all the documents which was produced by him. Again in 1995, a decision was taken to conduct inquiry into the alleged illegal appointments of several persons. In 1996, the respondent was called upon to submit letter of appointment in the headquarters which he submitted and thereafter a direction was issued for payment of salary. In spite of that, in 1997 again, inquiry was sought to be conducted and for that purpose the respondent was called upon to submit documents which was submitted by him. Being aggrieved by the said harassing attitude of the appellant, the respondent filed W.P (S) No. 3223 of 2001 which was disposed of on 24-7-2001 remanding the matter to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana Division with certain directions. The order dated 24-7-2001 passed by this Court in W.P (S) No. 3223 of 2001 is quoted herein below:—

“As the matter relates to payment of salary and requires determination by the Respondents, at the first instance, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

According to the petitioner, he was appointed against Class-Ill post of Basic Health Worker by order dated 15th December, 1984, issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi. He was transferred from one place to other and at present posted under the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Pakuria within the district of Pakur.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents are releasing salary in irregular manner and some times stopped payment on the ground that they are enquiring into the question of legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner.

It is stated that earlier he was asked to produce documents etc., vide letter dated 2nd March, 1990, which followed by similar directions given, vide letter dated 14th August, 1991. The enquiry relating to illegal appointees was made and list of illegal appointees was published on 30th August, 1999 which does not include the name of the petitioner.

The petitioner was again asked to submit all the relevant documents, vide letter dated 11th May, 1996 and, in the meantime, salary was not paid. Subsequently, though the salary was released in pursuance of direction dated 4th September, 1996, issued vide letter dated 5th November, 1998 has been again asked to appear for verification of documents with stipulation that otherwise the salary would be stopped.

Similar direction had been given in the year 1999, though the list of illegal appointees published vide Annexure-10, which does not disclose the name of the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the case is remitted to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka with direction to determine as to whether they would make any enquiry relating to legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner or not. If any such decision is taken, they must conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the Respondents will be prohibited to make further enquiry in respect to legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner, which is stated to have been made about 16½ years back.

It is needless to say that if the Respondents choose to proceed with the enquiry, before passing any order, they will have to inform and hear the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of.”

7. Admittedly, the inquiry was not concluded within the time fixed by this Court, rather on the contrary, on the basis of ex parte inquiry conducted in 2004, the impugned order of termination was passed.

8. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State before the learned Single Judge that there is no illegality in the impugned order of termination passed by the authorities of the appellant as because the respondent was an illegally appointed person. The learned Single Judge took notice of the aforesaid facts and observed as under:—

“9. The petitioner has stated in paragraph 25 that he immediately brought the aforesaid order dated 24-7-2001 passed in W.P(S) No. 3223 of 2001 to the knowledge of the Respondents. This paragraph has been replied by the Respondents in paragraph 28 of the Counter-Affidavit as being “matters of record”. In that view of the matter, this Court has no option, but to hold that the inquiry was conducted much beyond the period fixed by one of us in the aforementioned Writ Petition and as such it is in direct conflict with the order of this Court. It has therefore, to be set aside.

10. Mr. R.N Sahay, learned Senior Standing Counsel No. II submitted that the Petitioner being an illegally appointed person has no right to be heard nor does he deserve an opportunity of hearing. What Mr. Sahay submits is true. The rules of natural justice cannot be stretched to an extent that it amounts to conferring unwarranted relief to persons who have got no bona fides. However, in the instant case, it is seen that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and the inquiry was signed on 16-8-2003. Thus, from the date of appointment and conclusion of the inquiry the period is almost nineteen years. That apart, the bar created by one of us in W.P(S) No. 3223 of 2001, the inquiry, in any case, could not have been conducted after six months from the date of communication. The Petitioner has stated that the order was communicated immediately, but in reply, the Respondents have stated that this is matter of record. In other words, the period of six months lapsed some time in January 2002 and therefore, unless there was an order enlarging the time fixed by this Court, the Respondents could not have resorted to any further inquiry.”

9. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in 1984 and continued in service for about 20 years. In between the said period, the authorities of the appellant conducted inquiry so many times, stopped payment of salary and also issued direction for payment of salary. This attitude of the authorities of the appellant was deprecated by this Court in earlier writ petition and consequently a direction was issued to conclude the inquiry, if any, within a limited time. Although the order was passed in 2001, the inquiry was not conducted within the time fixed by the Court. Consequent thereupon, the respondent continued in ser vice. However, an inquiry was conducted in 2004, but without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondent, the impugned order of termination of services of the respondent was filed.

10. In the backgrounds of all these facts, the contention of the appellant that in case of illegal appointment no notice of hearing is required, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

11. How the services of the petitioner can be terminated after 20 years on the ground of illegal appointment and that too, without giving opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. The impugned order of termination, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the action of the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and capricious. In our view, the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

D.K Sinha, J.:—

13. I agree.

14. Appeal dismissed.