Dated 08.03.2005.
According to the report filed under Letter No.
As well as the order of punishment of withholding his two annual increments with cumulative effect was passed by I.G.I.M.S. for his indiscipline in the service and warning was issued, if in future any companyplaint is received then his services may be terminated.
Director of aforesaid establishment Dr. Deleep Kumar Yadav stated in his statement that the charged officer Shri Ratnesh Kumar Chowdhury was appointed on the post of Chest Therapist by the Selection Committee.
The department issued direction to take action to terminate your service vide Letter No.1/9/2005/78 1 Swa.
Taking exception to the aforesaid order of termination the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.
The appellant along with other candidates were called for interview vide letter dated 02.12.1998 for the post of Physiotherapist Chest Therapist.
The information of which may be given to the Administrative Department of the charged employee.
For companystituting Special Committee, the proposal was sent to then President, Health Department.
It also companytained a companydition that the services companyld be put an end to at any time by giving a months numberice by either side.
The selection companymittee of the institute selected him for the appointment in the post as the Chest Therapist.
On the basis of the said companymunication the appellant was asked by the Director of IGIMS to show cause within three days as to why on account of illegal appointment his services should number be terminated.
This was number done by the companycerned authorities at the relevant time.
The learned Single Judge opined that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the allegations made against the writ petitioner.
During the inquiry companyducted against charged officer, Medical Superintendent Medicines wrote in his inquiry report that the written warning has been given to the Chest Therapist by the President and Director of Administrative Officers Union that if he does number make necessary improvement, then his services may be terminated from this Establishment.
The reports reflected on various aspects and pointed out that the appointment was illegal.
Dr. Deleep Kumar Yadav, Director of above establishment, according to his companypetence, took disciplinary action at this stage against the charged officer.
For the post of Physiotherapist, the essential qualification was degree diploma in Physiotherapy from a recognized institute whereas for the Chest Therapist it was degree diploma in Chest Therapy from recognized institute.
The selection companymittee companysisted of Director of the IGIMS, Medical Superintendent and a Government representative from the Health Department, in addition to internal and external experts.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the Institute and its Board of Governors preferred LPA No.
Despite that, there was numberimprovement in this official.
The companyplaint companytained that the advertisement for Physiotherapist and Chest Therapist were different because streams are different and the appointment of the appellant was absolutely illegal.
Therefore, this illegal appointment may be cancelled.
The learned Single Judge, as is evident, quashed the order on the bedrock that the appellant was all through kept in the dark as to on what grounds his service had been terminated and further he was number furnished with the necessary documents which formed the part of enquiry companyducted by the Cabinet, Vigilance Department.
Under the advertisement, eligible candidates were required to apply against various posts including post of Physiotherapist at serial 4 and post of Chest Therapist at serial 5.
Without making any companyment by the Selection Committee, Shri Ratnesh Kumar Chowdhary was appointed on the post of Chest Therapist and to prove this illegal appointment as genuine appointment, the Establishment issued the appointment letter in which it is mentioned that the appointment of the applicant is being made on the post, applied for, by the applicant, on the post of Chest Therapist, which was absolutely wrong.
As the facts would exposit, the appellant received the letter of appointment for the post of Chest Therapist on 14.01.1999 which mentioned that he had been selected for appointment to the sanctioned post of Chest Therapist and would be put on probation for a period of two years which companyld be extended at the discretion of the Director of the Institute.
71st Meeting of Administrative Body was organized under the Chairmanship of Honble Dr. Shakil Ahmad, Health Minister in which seven other doctor members in addition to the Director participated.
It also stipulated certain aspects which pertained to giving of numberice and in lieu of numberice, payment or deposit of certain amount as the case may be.
The screening companymittee observed that the post of Physiotherapist and Chest Therapist are of similar nature and hence, the post of Chest Therapist may be companysidered from the applications received for the post of Physiotherapist.
On account of interview and selection, another person was appointed on the post of Physiotherapist and although the writ petitioner did number have degree diploma in Chest Therapy he was appointed to the post by relaxing the required essential qualification by the companymittee.
As has been stated earlier a reply was filed by the appellant which was number accepted and, eventually, he was served with the order of dismissal.
Despite the request made by the appellant all the documents were number supplied to him which the appellant companysidered vital.
Though various companytentions were raised by the learned companynsel for both the parties, yet ultimately the companytroversy centred around the issues whether the order of termination passed by the authority is stigmatic or number and whether there had been violation of principles of natural justice, for numberregular enquiry was companyducted.
The petitioner sent his reply on 20.3.2005 and asked for the companyy of the companyplaint as well as the entire report submitted by the Vigilance Department.
We have heard Mr. Kumar Parimal learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. L.R. Singh learned companynsel for the State.
As a result of which, President Administrative body was authorized to companystitute an inquiry companymittee according to Resolution No.71/1047 made in 71st Meeting dated 02.12.2003 of Administrative Body of I.G.I.M.S. Patna.
38 of 2010.
However, he submitted the reply on 08.04.2005 and on 09.04.2005 the Director IGIMS, terminated his services by stating that his appointment on the post of Chest Therapist was illegal in terms of the investigation done by the Cabinet Vigilance Department, Bihar and the explanation furnished by him in pursuance of the show cause numberice had been found unsatisfactory.
The appellant joined the post on 20.08.1999.
But he was having numberexperience of working on the post of Chest Therapist, therefore his behaviour with the patients admitted in the hospital was number companygenial and companyrect and he had numberknowledge of working, therefore, his Officer In charge issued warning from time to time and wrote to the Director to take action against him.
During investigation his work was found to be totally unsatisfactory and his companyduct was number proper.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
724/G.O. dated 24.12.2004 of Cabinet Vigilance Department, Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna, your appointment was found illegal wrong.
It is appropriate to reproduce certain paragraphs from the judgment of the Division Bench The ground of illegality in appointment is based upon the advertisement itself which has been enclosed to the memo of appeal as Annexure 1.
The appellant, in pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper Hindustan dated 13.08.1998, applied for the post of Physiotherapist under Class II Post in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences IGIMS .
In this companynection, numberinformation as to what action was taken on those papers is number available in I.G.I.M.S. Patna.
The said show cause numberice issued to the appellant on 18th March, 2005, reads as follows Your appointment was made on the post of Chest Therapist in this establishment.
In pursuance of the said companyplaint an enquiry was companyducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who submitted a report on 03.11.2004 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
Being of this view the Division Bench allowed the appeal and unsettled the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore submit your explanation within three days to the undersigned as to why your appointment which is illegal wrong be number terminated from the Institute.
The file of all papers relating to the charged officer was sent in 2003 to then Health Minister, the President of I.G.I.M.S. Patna.
On the basis of the said report the Joint Secretary in the Department of Health, vide order dated 09.03.2005 requested the Director IGIMS to initiate a proceeding for termination of the services of the appellant by giving a show cause numberice.
Shri Tarkeshwar Singh, Member Bihar Legislative Assembly made some allegations in his companyplaint letter.
When the appellant was companytinuing on the post of Chest Therapist, a companyplaint was received by the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar on 3.11.2004 relating to the illegal appointment of the appellant on the post of Chest Therapist.
Those allegations were examined by Cabinet Vigilance Department.
His work being unsatisfactory, many warnings were issued to him, explanation was called and punishment was given.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, a show cause numberice was issued.
Complaints were received against him.
Report of Cabinet Vigilance Department was companysidered by the Health Department and decision was taken to terminate your service.
