[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ashok Kumar Gayakwad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2026

                                                       1




                                                                         2026:CGHC:17037
                                                                                    NAFR

                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        Order reserved on 07-04-2026
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY                                Order delivered on 15 -04-2026
Digitally signed
by AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY                                    WPS No. 4676 of 2021
Date: 2026.04.15
16:15:16 +0530
                   1 - Bhojeshwar Chandrakar S/o Shri Arun Chandrakar Aged About 33
                   Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And
                   Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Raod, Daldal Seoni, Raipur,
                   R/o Village Baigapara, City Kotwali, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            --- Petitioner
                                                    versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology, Vigyan
                   Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Raod, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur,
                   Chhattisgarh.
                   2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology,
                   Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Raod, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District
                   Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                       --- Respondents

1 - Satish Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Ram Lal Chandra, Aged About 33 Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Village Malni, Post Salni, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh, Council Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Aryahind Yadav S/o Shri Sitaram Yadav Aged About 40 Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Trishul Chowk, Baigapara, Citi Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgahr, District :

Durg, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Technical Education Science And Technology, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Ashok Kumar Gayakwad S/o Shri Seukram Gayakwad Aged About 38 Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Bharenga, Post Khorpa, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

-Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh, Council Science And Technology Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Bhupesh Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Nishad Aged About 32 Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technolony, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Village Bendri, Tahsil Utai, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Technical Education Science And Technology, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh, Council Science And Technology Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Sunil Yadu S/o Shri Shankar Lal Yadu Aged About 30 Years Working As Peon , Chhattisgarh, Council Of Science And Technology , Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur , R/o Near Khallari Temple, Mahadev Ghat Road, Police Station Sundar Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Technical Education Science And Technology , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology , Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Dooman Lal Soni S/o Late Shri Bahalram Soni Aged About 41 Years Working As Peon, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Near Durgesh Grocery Shop, Baijnath Para, Police Station City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh Council Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

1 - Amrit Das Patela S/o Late Shri Daduram Patela Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Barouda Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tahsil Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Council For Science And Technology, Mig 25, Indravati Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director General, Chhattisgarh Council For Science And Technology, Mig 25, Indravati Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioners in WPS: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Nos.4676/2021, 4639/2021, Advocate.

4644/2021,        4690/2021,


For   Petitioner   in     WPS:        Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate

For   Petitioner   in     WPS:       Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate

For Respondent/State           :     Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent No.2            :     Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,
                                     Advocate

                  Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J
                            CAV Order

1. Since all the petitions assail the common order and involve

interconnected issues, they were heard and being disposed of by

this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings

and the documents placed in WPS No.4676/2021 are being

referred.

2. Challenge in all the petitions is to the order dated 21/9/2020

whereby the petitioners have been terminated from the respective

services as also the order dated 17/3/2021 by which the

departmental appeals of the petitioners have been rejected.

3. (A) The facts, as projected in the instant writ petitions, are that,

initially the petitioners were appointed on Collector rate between

the period 2011-2012. Looking to the services rendered by the

petitioners, they have been regularized on the post of Peon in the

regular pay scale of Rs. 4700-4750-7440/- + Grade Pay Rs.

1300/- in the year 2014. On the completion of probation period,

when their services were not confirmed, the petitioners moved

representations and prayed for confirmation of their respective

services. In the meanwhile, on account of reduction of salary, the

petitioners preferred WPS No.3094/2017 which was allowed by

this Court holding that the manner of reduction from salary of the

petitioners from July 2017 is held illegal as such, the petitioners

are entitled for salary in accordance with the contract of

appointment. In the said writ petition, this Court reserved liberty to

the respondents observing that it would be open for the

respondents to take appropriate decision in the service matter of

the petitioners on the basis of enquiry report collected by the

respondents and due consideration of reply to the show cause

notices, by a speaking order in respect of each of the petitioners.

Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued notices to the

petitioners and sought explanation on the following points:-

"1.परिषद कार्यालय में दैनिक वेतन भोगी/संविदा कर्मचारी के रूप में

आपकी नियुक्ति के लिए क्या कोई विज्ञापन जारी किया गया ?

2. क्या आपके द्वारा इस विज्ञापन के आधार पर आवेदन दिया गया ?

3. आवेदन उपरांत क्या कोई परीक्षा / साक्षात्कार के माध्यम से आपका

चयन किया गया?

4. परिषद कार्यालय में दैनिक वेतन भोगी से नियमित कर्मचारी के रूप में

आपकी नियुक्ति किस आधार पर तथा किस चयन प्रक्रिया/भर्ती प्रक्रिया से

की गई I

5. क्या इस नियमित वेतनमान में भर्ती किए जाने के लिए कोई विज्ञापन

जारी किया गया तथा इस विज्ञापन के आधार पर आपने परिषद कार्यालय

में आवेदन जमा किया ?

6. क्या आपके द्वारा कोई परीक्षा/साक्षात्कार आदि चयन प्रक्रिया से होकर

आपका चयन नियमित कर्मचारी के रूप में किया गया ?

(B) After receipt of the said notices, the respective petitioners

submitted their reply. In response to the further correspondence

also, the petitioners submitted their reply and submitted the

requisite information/documents sought for by the respondent

authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by

filing WPS No.5220/2019 and sought a direction towards the

respondents authorities to consider their candidature for

confirmation on the posts. The said writ petition was disposed of

by this Court vide order dated 17/07/2019 by directing the

respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioners

with respect to their confirmation at the earliest preferably within a

period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

Thereagainst, the respondent No.2 herein preferred WA

No.543/2019 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this

Court. Subsequently, the department preferred MCC No.226/2020

for extention of time to comply with the order of this Court passed

in WPS No.5220/2019, which was disposed of by this Court vide

order dated 04/03/2020 and granted further 45 days time for

deciding the claim of the writ petitioners.

submit their respective marksheets of Class-VI and Class-VIII,

Caste certificate issued by the High Power Committee, Domicile

certificate duly attested by the Gazetted Officer, Police Verification

Form etc. In respect of the said letter, the petitioners submitted all

the documents, however, all of a sudden, vide order dated

21/09/2020, terminated the services of the petitioners. Being

aggrieved, the petitioners moved the Departmental Appeal,

however, the same has been rejected on 17/03/2021 in an illegal

and arbitrary manner, that too, by a non-speaking and

unreasoned order.

(D) According to the petitioners, the order of termination and

rejection of departmental appeal is absolutely illegal and arbitrary

because before passing the order of termination, a due procedure

has not been followed despite the fact that the petitioners are the

regular employees of the department. Thus, these petitions.

4. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners have attained the status of permanent that the

employee with the respondent no. 2 after passing of regularization

order by the head of Executive Committee i.e. Respondent no. 2.

The services of petitioners not only got regularized but they have

continuously worked/performed the duties on the said post for

about 2 years, which is also a probation period (2 years). Learned

counsel submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the

petitioners by observing the principle of "audi alterem partem" and

no proper procedure was adopted before the termination therefore

the entire process is illegal, bad and contrary to the provisions of

the Chhattisgarh Council of Science & Technology Service

Recruitment Rules, 2003 (for brevity 'the Rules, 2003'), and also

contravention to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel further submits that no permanent employee

could have been terminated without proper procedure of law since

the period of probation was already over and therefore no

extension was given to the petitioners. Even this Court has

directed to confirm the services petitioners, despite the said fact

the authorities passed the orders impugned in an illegal and

arbitrary manner, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law.

(ii) Learned counsel by placing reliance upon the decision of the

Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Swati Priyadarshini Vs

State of Madhya Pradesh And Others1 contended that once an

employee is allowed to continue in service for a long period

pursuant to regularization, the employer cannot subsequently

terminate the services on the ground of alleged irregularity in the

initial appointment, particularly when the employee is not guilty of

any fraud or misrepresentation. An employee cannot be penalized

for lapses, if any, committed by the employer in the process of

appointment or regularization. In the present case, the petitioners 1 (2024) 19 SCC 128

had no role in the alleged procedural irregularities, if any, and

therefore cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel further

submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary

and illegal.

5. (a) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would

submit that no open advertisement was ever issued for

recruitment/regularization of 13 peons including the present

petitioners. No procedure as prescribed under "Service Rules &

Regulation Manual" of the CCOST has been followed while

recruiting/regularizing 13 peons including the present petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that the reservation policy of the State

has also not been followed. Moreover, the petitioners have also

failed to throw light upon the correctness and legality

methodology/procedure followed in respect of their recruitment/

regularization, despite affording due opportunity twice.

(b) According to the learned counsel for the respondents

without availing the alternative remedy available before the

Labour Court they directly approached this Court invoking the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and as such these

petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of availability of

alternative remedy.

the petitioners that they have been recruited/regularized by the

then DG-CCOST upon the approval of the Hon'ble Minister,

Department of Science & Technology, Government of

Chhattisgarh who is also the Chairman of CCOST clearly

demonstrating the irregularity in their recruitment/regularization.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioners and other

similarly situated persons were working in excess to the

sanctioned strength of the peon/chowkidar. The appointment of

the petitioners and other similarly situated persons herein was

made in violation of Services Rules applicable in CCOST. Due

procedure was not adopted for recruitment of the petitioners and

other similarly situated persons herein. Even the roster relating to

reservation has also not been followed in the recruitment process.

Thus, the orders impugned are just and proper warranting no

interference of this Court.

(d) Learned counsel further submits that there was no procedure

followed as prescribed under "Service Rules & Regulation

Manual" of the CCOST for direct recruitment of personnel(in the

post of (Peon/Chowkidars). No record was found in the

Establishment Section to show that the regularization of these

personnel working as daily wager/contract rate was done as per

the procedure prescribed under "Service Rules & Regulation

Manual" of the CCOST. Learned counsel further submits that the

matters of the petitioners have been finally put to rest after

passing of their termination order strictly according to the decision

taken by the President of General Body of the CCOST vide letter

dated 17/08/2020, in which, it was found that the appointments of

the present petitioners and other similarly situated persons in

CCOST was in complete violation of the Manual of the CCOST.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings and documents.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed on

Collector rate during the period 2011-2012 and thereafter their

services were regularized in the year 2014 on the post of Peon in

the regular pay scale. It is also an admitted position that after

regularization, the petitioners continuously discharged their duties

for more than two years.

8. From the material available on record, it is evident that the

petitioners have completed the prescribed period of probation. No

order extending their probation period has been brought on record

by the respondents. Further, since the petitioners had already

attained the status of regular employees, the protection under

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was clearly attracted.

The respondents failed to comply with the mandatory

requirements of conducting a proper enquiry, and providing

reasonable opportunity to defend before passing the order of

termination.

9. In Swati Priyadarshini (supra), the Supreme Court held thus at

para 34:

"34. It is profitable to refer to what five learned Judges

of this Court laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.

Union of India: (SCC OnLine SC para 28)

"28. The position may, therefore, be summed up

as follows: Any and every termination of service

is not a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.

A termination of service brought about by the

exercise of a contractual right is not per se

dismissal or removal, as has been held by this

Court in Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of

India. Likewise the termination of service by

compulsory retirement in terms of a specific rule

regulating the conditions of service is not

tantamount to the infliction of a punishment and

does not attract Article 311(2), as has also been

held by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.

In either of the two abovementioned cases the

termination of the service did not carry with it the

penal consequences of loss of pay, or

allowances under Rule 52 of the Fundamental

Rules. It is true that the misconduct, negligence,

inefficiency or other disqualification may be the

motive or the inducing factor which influences

the Government to take action under the terms

of the contract of employment or the specific

service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under

the contract or the rules, to terminate the service

the motive operating on the mind of the

Government is, as Chagla, C.J., has said in

Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India? wholly

irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is

founded on the right flowing from contract or the

service rules then, prima facie, the termination is

not a punishment and carries with it no evil

consequences and so Article 311 is not

attracted. But even if the Government has, by

contract or under the rules, the right to terminate

the employment without going through the

procedure prescribed for inflicting the

punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction

in rank, the Government may, nevertheless,

choose to punish the servant and if the

termination of service is sought to be founded on

misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other

disqualification, then it is a punishment and the

requirements of Article 311 must be complied

with. As already stated if the servant has got a

right to continue in the post, then, unless the

contract of employment or the rules provide to

the contrary, his services cannot be terminated

otherwise than for misconduct, negligence,

inefficiency or other good and sufficient cause. A

termination of the service of such a servant on

such grounds must be a punishment and,

therefore, a dismissal or removal within Article

311, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right and

he is visited with the evil consequences of loss

of pay and allowances. It puts an indelible

stigma on the officer affecting his future career. A

reduction in rank likewise may be by way of

punishment or it may be an innocuous thing. If

the government servant has a right to a

particular rank, then the very reduction from that

rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then

lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank.

If, however, he has no right to the particular

rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank

to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily

be a punishment. But the mere fact that the

servant has no title to the post or the rank and

the Government has, by contract, express or

implied, or under the rules, the right to reduce

him to a lower post does not mean that an order

of reduction of a servant to a lower post or rank

cannot in any circumstances be a punishment.

The real test for determining whether the

reduction in such cases is or is not by way of

punishment is to find out if the order for the

reduction also visits the servant with any penal

consequences. Thus if the order entails or

provides for the forfeiture of his pay or

allowances or the loss of his seniority in his

substantive rank or the stoppage or

postponement of his future chances of

promotion, then that circumstance may indicate

that although in form the Government had

purported to exercise its right to terminate the

employment or to reduce the servant to a lower

rank under the terms of the contract of

employment or under the rules, in truth and

reality the Government has terminated the

employment as and by way of penalty. The use

of the expression "terminate" or "discharge" is

not conclusive. In spite of the use of such

innocuous expressions, the court has to apply

the two tests mentioned above, namely, (1)

whether the servant had a right to the post or the

rank, or (2) whether he has been visited with evil

consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred

to? If the case satisfies either of the two tests

then it must be held that the servant has been

punished and the termination of his service must

be taken as a dismissal or removal from service

or the reversion to his substantive rank must be

regarded as a reduction in rank and if the

requirements of the rules and Article 311, which

give protection to government servant have not

been complied with, the termination of the

service or the reduction in rank must be held to

be wrongful and in violation of the constitutional

right of the servant,"

(emphasis supplied)

10. From bare perusal of the impugned order of termination dated

21/09/2020 reveals that the same has been passed without

conducting any regular departmental enquiry. Though certain

notices were issued seeking explanation from the petitioners, the

same cannot be equated with a full-fledged enquiry as required

under law. The petitioners were not afforded a proper opportunity

of hearing, nor were they confronted with any specific charges in

accordance with prescribed procedure. The action of the

respondents is thus in clear violation of the principles of natural

justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which

mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard. The

procedure adopted by the respondents falls short of the minimum

standards of fairness required in administrative action.

11. The contention of the respondents that the initial appointment/

regularization of the petitioners was irregular due to non-

compliance of recruitment rules and reservation policy does not

justify the impugned action. It is well settled that if there is any

irregularity in the process of appointment, the same is attributable

to the employer and the employees cannot be penalized for the

fault of the authorities, particularly after having rendered long

years of service pursuant to regularization.

12. In the case at hand, the petitioners were appointed during the

years 2011-2012 and subsequently they were duly regularized on

the post of Peon in the year 2014, thereby acquiring a substantive

right to hold the posts. In the year 2017, their salary has been

reduced by the respondent authorities. The action of the

respondent authorities in reducing the salary of the petitioners

was earlier challenged before this Court in WPS No. 3094/2017,

which was allowed by holding that the reduction in salary with

effect from July 2017 was illegal, and the said finding has attained

finality. Subsequently, in WPS No. 5220/2019 preferred by the writ

petitioners this Court directed the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioners for confirmation within a stipulated period,

which direction was affirmed by the Division Bench upon

dismissal of WA No. 543/2019. Despite the said facts, the

respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned order of

termination in the year 2020 without any justifiable basis. Such

action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable,

and violative of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of

any material to justify a departure from the settled position, the

impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set

aside.

13. In the opinion of this Court, no appointee should be disturbed after

putting in service more than 3-4 years and the employee be

permitted to do duties peacefully and without any sense of

insecurity. In the cases at hand, the petitioners initially appointed

at Collector rate in the year 2011-2012, subsequently, they

regularized in the year 2014 and they continued on their

respective posts till 2020. However, after completion of 6-7 years

of service, the termination orders have been passed, that too,

without following the due process of law. A bare perusal of the

material available on record clearly indicates that the authorities

have utterly failed to establish that the petitioners secured their

initial appointment or subsequent regularization by any act of

fraud or by misleading the authorities. Any technical irregularities,

if at all, in the process of such appointments are attributable solely

to the respondent authorities and cannot, in law, be fastened upon

the petitioners, who were initially engaged on a Class-IV post at

the Collector rate.

14. The appellate order dated 17/03/2021 rejecting the departmental

appeal is also unsustainable, as the same is a non-speaking and

unreasoned order. It does not reflect any application of mind and

fails to assign any reasons for rejecting the appeal, which is

contrary to settled principles of administrative law.

15. Upon consideration of the entire record, this Court holds that the

petitioners having been duly regularized in service in 2014

following their initial appointment in 2011-2012, thereafter

acquired the status of regular employees. Consequently, they

were entitled to the constitutional protection under Article 311(2),

which mandates that no termination can be effected without a

proper departmental enquiry and reasonable opportunity of being

heard, both of which are conspicuously absent here. The

respondents merely issued notices & sought some information

from petitioners, without conducting a legally sustainable enquiry

or framing definite charges, thereby violating the settled principles

of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. Moreover, the

respondents' plea of irregularity in appointment cannot be

accepted at this belated stage, as any such irregularity is

attributable to the authorities themselves and cannot be invoked

to the petitioners' detriment after years of service, especially

absent any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. Further, the

order of departmental appeal dated 17/03/2021 is non-speaking,

devoid of reasons, and thus fails to meet legal requirements.

16. It appears that the respondent authorities have not followed the

principles of natural justice and the impugned order has been

passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and without conducting due enquiry. The practice of

passing order involving civil (evil) consequences, without affording

an opportunity of hearing and without conducting enquiry, is

condemned. Thus, this action of termination of the services of the

petitioners is bad on the simple ground that the petitioners were

not afforded any opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was

conducted before passing the order impugned.

17. It is well settled principle of law that an order visiting with civil

consequences cannot be passed without following the due

process of law. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others vs. State of Bihar

& Others2, wherein the appointment of teachers was cancelled

without giving them an opportunity of hearing, observed as under:

"It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In

the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the

view that the appellant should have been given an

opportunity of hearing before canceling their

2 AIR 1991 SC 310

appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was

afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the

detriment of the appellant could be passed without

complying with the rules of natural justice."

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A.

Industries Ltd. & Others3, considering the concept of opportunity

of hearing observed as under:

"The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in

every case, is whether the person concerned should

have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case

and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably

and impartially. In other words application of the

principles of natural justice that no man should be

condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority

from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the

concerned person. It is a fundamental rule of law that

no decision must be taken which will affect the right of

any person without first being informed of the case

and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward

his/her case. An order involving civil consequences

must be made consistently with the rules of natural

justice. Therefore, fair play in action request that the

procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable.

3 (1993) 3 SCC 259

The manner of exercise of the power and its impact

on the rights of the person affected would be

inconformity with the principles of natural justice"

19. The said principle is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University s others 4,

wherein Their Lordships observed that:

"The law is settled that non-arbitrariness is essential

facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State

action governed by Article 14. It has come to be

established, as a further corollary, that the audi

alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a

requirement of Article 14, for, natural justice is the

antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public

employment, it is well settled that any action taken by

the employer against an employee must be fair, just

and reasonable which are components of fair

treatment. The conferment of absolute power to

terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to

fair, just and reasonable treatment."