The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department v. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2414 of 2009 With W.P. (S) No. 2415 of 2009 Anil Kumar Singh Srikant Prasad Roy … … … Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2414 of 2009] … … … Petitioner [In W.P. (S) No. 2415 of 2009] 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Versus Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka 6. The In-charge Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Banskuli, Raneshwar, Dumka
Decision
… … Respondents [In both the writ petitions] CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioners For the State : : Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG Mr. Rajan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I Ms. Neha Pandey, AC to Sr. SC-III 15/22.02.2024 2. Heard the parties. Similar issues are involved in both the writ petitions and as such both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. 4. It is case of the petitioners that right from the year 2002, they have been stopped from working in the Department and, thereafter, neither salary has been paid nor they have been allowed to work. After seven years, they preferred writ petitions for payment of salary and to allow them to resume their duties. On 25.01.2017, after hearing the parties, this Court had directed the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government RC/ 2 of Jharkhand, Ranchi to file specific affidavit regarding genuineness of Memo No. 72, dated 01.03.2002 and also regarding illegality and propriety of those letters and if required, a detailed enquiry was to be conducted regarding those letters and also against the similarly situated persons who are continuing with the Department, whose appointment itself are forged. Thereafter, the matter was duly inquired by the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi after constituting a Committee and a report to that effect has been brought on record vide Annexure-A to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. As per report of the Committee, the appointment of one Arun Kumar Choudhary and Bishwajeet Gorai were found illegal and accordingly, their names had been struck off from the rolls of the respective offices and now they are no longer in the employment of the Department and head of the concerned offices have also been directed to lodge FIR against them. Petitioners in the instant writ petition are seeking parity with Arun Kumar Choudhary and Bishwajeet Gorai. 5. It is case of the petitioners that after their termination, said Arun Kumar Choudhary and Bishwajeet Gorai filed writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 27.04.2017. This Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, quashed the order of termination on the ground that ingredients of departmental proceedings were not adhered to. Petitioners ought to have been proceeded departmentally and opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to them by framing specific charges and thereafter opportunity of cross examination. Without issuance of any show-cause notice services of Arun Kumar Choudhary and Bishwajeet Gorai were terminated and on that technical ground, the writ petition was allowed and their termination was quashed. However, liberty was given to the respondents – State to proceed in accordance with law if there was requirement of any enquiry. 6. It has further been submitted that after quashment of order, RC/ 3 Arun Kumar Choudhary and Bishwajeet Gorari have been reinstated and are still continuing in service, no further enquiry has been instituted till date. Petitioners are claiming parity with the said employees. 7. Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously urges that in the same Department, on the basis of same set of charges, others were also terminated but later on they have been allowed to work in view of order passed by this Court and as such, petitioner are also entitled for same and similar benefits and they should be allowed to work and are also entitled for the salary for the period they have been 8. 9. kept out of service. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that petitioners were issued show-cause notice and thereafter they replied to the same and after considering their reply, they have been terminated from the service. That termination order is not under challenge. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently on 01.03.2002, the stay order was issued and petitioners were allowed to continue. Said stay order was in view of direction of the Personnel Secretary to the Chief Minister. The order was issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Department of Health. 10. On 11.01.2024, this Court, after hearing the parties and considering facts and circumstances had put a question mark “when the matter was duly inquired by the Chief Secretary and the then Health Secretary, whether this fact was ever brought before the coordinate Bench of this Court?”. Even if the order of termination was quashed, the observation was made to proceed afresh. 11. Considering seriousness of the issue, Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG was asked to look into the matter as act of RC/ 4 the officials were found not praiseworthy. Learned AAG was directed to assist this Court in the instant matter and appear on the next date to apprise this Court. 12. Today when the case is called out, Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG submits that the pursuant to direction of this Court, the State has filed affidavit clearly mentioning therein that in order to inquire the matter relating to forged appointments, pursuant to the order number 67m dated 12.04.2017 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Jharkhand, a three-member inquiry committee had been formed under the Chairmanship of Manoj Kumar (IAS) Special Secretary and it is directed to submit the final report within a month. Pursuant thereto, an interim investigation report was submitted after due investigation by the Special Secretary, Health, Education and Health Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide GSP No. 21 (55), dated 25.04.2017. In paragraphs-04-08, the appointment of Vishwajit Gorai and Arun Kumar Chaudhary was said to be forged. Instructions were given to the concerned Civil Surgeon to register FIR against the concerned personnel and services of both the personnel were terminated. However, said Vishwajit Gorai and Arun Kumar Choudhary approached before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2849 of 2017, which was allowed. However, seeing the intricacies involved in these cases, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, vide memo no. 192, dated 06.02.2024, sought for a report from the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Dumka/ Deoghar, Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, vide letter no. 573, dated 10.02.2024, requested the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka to initiate departmental proceeding against Vishwajit Gorai and provide inquiry report. Thereafter, vide memo no. 580, dated 12.02.2024, a detailed report was submitted by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer to the Director- in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, in reference to letter no. RC/ 5 192, dated 06.02.2024, whereby names of erring officers were provided and it was also informed that a three member committee has been formed to inquire into said matter and upon obtaining the enquiry report same would be submitted to the Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand. The illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Learned AAG argues since the case upon which the petitioners were willing to stand is itself demolished as appointment of Bishwajeet Gorai and Arun Kumar Choudhary was turned to be forged and fabricated and as such there is no merits in the instant writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. Learned AAG assures that appropriate steps shall be taken against the employees illegally working in the department. 13. In view of fair submission of learned AAG and specific averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents dated 21.02.2024, I find no merits in these writ petitions. As a sequel thereto, the writ petitions stand dismissed. The respondents are directed to proceed in the matter and take appropriate steps against the erring officials and employees. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/