Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they had been appointed on sanctioned posts, and continued in service for over 11 years before termination. They were entitled to regularisation under the directions in paragraph 53 of (Uma Devi) (supra), and also on principles of sympathy and equity. Termination after 11 years of service preceded by a simple show cause notice was unjustified and insufficient. Their service book had been opened along with enhancement of salary. They were thus regular employees for all intents and purposes. Even if the respondents opined the appointment to be forged, they were required to hold a regular departmental proceeding and arrive at a determinate finding with opportunity of defence. In the inquiry held pursuant to the order of the Court, the petitioners were not associated or furnished opportunity to defend. The finding was ex parte and in violation of natural justice. The petitioners had originally questioned their termination and had not sought regularisation. If the latter writ petition was allowed, unless the order was set aside, he could not be denied the benefit by referring them to be considered for regularisation. The reference by the Court to consider them for regularisation in the facts of the case was itself improper and bad. Reliance was placed on 2008 [1) PLJR 841, 2009 (2) PLJR 869, 2011 (4) PLJR 1 and (2010 ) 9 SCC 247 [State of Karnataka v. M. L. Kesari).

Reliance in support of submissions was placed on A.I.R. 1976 SC 2547 and (2009) 7 SCC 751. (2008 ) 10 SCC 1, (2010) 4 SCC 179, 2011(4) PLJR(SC) 83, 2011(4) PLJR(SC) 90, 2011(3) PLJR 913, 2012(1) PLJR 366 and (2012) 6 SCC 502.

A litigant approaching the Court for relief has the foremost duty to honestly and faithfully present the correct facts. He cannot be permitted to distort and misrepresent essential facts. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and unpolluted. Any laxity can lead to complete subverting of judicial procedure with an unscrupulous litigant obtaining orders contrary to law, as observed in (2010) 4 SCC 728 (Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division) :

Patna High Court CWJC No.267 of 2010 dt. 01-02-2013 19 Once the petitioners accepted the reference to the Committee, they are precluded from challenging the same after the Committee has rejected their claims.

The Additional Advocate General 1 has aptly relied on 2011(3) PLJR (DB) (Sunaina Devi v. State of Bihar) holding as follows :-

"13. Let it be noted that the present appellant did not challenge the order in appeal and she did submit to the authority of the Committee appointed by the Bench. In our opinion, it is not open to the appellant to challenge the constitution of the committee by the Bench."

Reliance by the Appellants on 2008(1) PLJR 841 (Ram Krishna Dubey v. State of Bihar) (DB) is misplaced on facts. It related to a termination for alleged illegal appointment much after regularisation without calling into question the latter act. Likewise 2009 (2) PLJR 869 (DB) is again distinguishable on its facts. It related to an earlier termination for unsatisfactory conduct set aside by the Court. The respondents raised no issues of illegal appointment. Having reinstated him, the respondents granted him increments and pay revisions also. As an afterthought years later the question of the original appointment being illegal was sought to be raised. In 2011 (4) PLJR 1 (State of Bihar v. Krishna Prasad Srivastava) the facts were entirely different. It related to a first termination itself on grounds of a forged appointment letter.