Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chitranjan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Chitranjan Singh vs State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Petition Allowed Court Patna Decided Jun 23, 2000
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/123956

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1977 of 1999
Subject
;Service
Disposition
Petition Allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Law - Termination--Petitioner appointed as peon on temporary basis in 1982--Transferred in 1991 to another Division--He was being paid salary--In all, he continued in service for about 16 years--His termination without giving him any notice or showing any cause--Illegal and inappropriate--Order of transfer, ...

Key legal issue
;Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition Allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chitranjan Singh

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History

Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 2373 dated 1st December, 1998 issued by the District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Vaishali, whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Peon on temporary basis by D.E.O., Sitamarh

Excerpt

service law - termination--petitioner appointed as peon on temporary basis in 1982--transferred in 1991 to another division--he was being paid salary--in all, he continued in service for about 16 years--his termination without giving him any notice or showing any cause--illegal and inappropriate--order of transfer, therefore, set aside. - .....1st december, 1998 issued by the district education officer (d.e.o.), vaishali, whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.2. as the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.3. the petitioner was appointed as peon on temporary basis by d.e.o., sitamarhi, vide memo no. 2641-43 dated 22nd may, 1982 and was posted in gokul jagat high school, narbara against the second post of peon. subsequently, he was transferred by additional director of education, tirhut division, muzaffarpur, vide order dated 2nd july, 1991 to one sheo nandan gaya high school; bakerpur (vaishali).4. after transfer of petitioner, he was not being paid salary for which communication was made by the head master of the school (vaishali) on 12th august, 1991. the director, secondary education, bihar, in his turn, taking into consideration the transfer of petitioner allowed to accept the joining and ordered to release the salary, vide his letter no. 3162 dated 3rd september, 1991. subsequently, after about seven years of such transfer and 16 years from the date of appointment, the director, secondary education alleging the appointment of petitioner as illegal directed the d.e.o., vaishali to give show-cause notice to petitioner and then to terminate his services, vide his letter dated 15th january, 1998. however, the show-cause notice was given to petitioner and the d.e.o., vaishali merely directed the petitioner to produce service book by 17th april, 1998, vide his letter dated 13th january, 1998 giving reference of the director's letter dated 15th january, 1998. therefore, the impugned order of termination was issued on 1st december, 1998. though the d.e.o., vaishali vide his earlier letter dated 18th april, 1998 intimated the director, secondary education that the appointment was made, as back as in the year 1982 and on verification, after transfer of petitioner, salary was paid on the direction.....

Full Judgment

Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 2373 dated 1st December, 1998 issued by the District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Vaishali, whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Peon on temporary basis by D.E.O., Sitamarhi, vide Memo No. 2641-43 dated 22nd May, 1982 and was posted in Gokul Jagat High School, Narbara against the second post of Peon. Subsequently, he was transferred by Additional Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated 2nd July, 1991 to one Sheo Nandan Gaya High School; Bakerpur (Vaishali).

4. After transfer of petitioner, he was not being paid salary for which communication was made by the Head Master of the School (Vaishali) on 12th August, 1991. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, in his turn, taking into consideration the transfer of petitioner allowed to accept the joining and ordered to release the salary, vide his letter No. 3162 dated 3rd September, 1991. Subsequently, after about seven years of such transfer and 16 years from the date of appointment, the Director, Secondary Education alleging the appointment of petitioner as illegal directed the D.E.O., Vaishali to give show-cause notice to petitioner and then to terminate his services, vide his letter dated 15th January, 1998. However, the show-cause notice was given to petitioner and the D.E.O., Vaishali merely directed the petitioner to produce service book by 17th April, 1998, vide his letter dated 13th January, 1998 giving reference of the Director's letter Dated 15th January, 1998. Therefore, the impugned order of termination was issued on 1st December, 1998. Though the D.E.O., Vaishali vide his earlier letter dated 18th April, 1998 intimated the Director, Secondary Education that the appointment was made, as back as in the year 1982 and on verification, after transfer of petitioner, salary was paid on the direction of the Director, Secondary Education.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner continued in service for about 16 years; at least the Director, Secondary Education had knowledge of his appointment more than seven years prior to the issuance of the order of termination and the impugned order has been issued without notice and hearing the petitioner, without giving specific reason showing illegality and impropriety in the matter of appointment, the impugned order dated 1st December, 1998 is fit to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Memo No. 2373 dated 1st December, 1998, resulting reinstatement of petitioner to the post of Peon, without any liberty to the authorities to reopen the issue relating to legality and propriety of appointment, now more than 18 (eighteen) years having passed after the appointment.

7. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. Petition allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial