Dhiraj Singh Rawat vs State of U.P. and others

Rajesh Tandon, J.

By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 thereby terminating the appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on the post of Sweeper by an appointment letter dated 28.3.1993 by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner went to the office of the Chief Vetenary Officer on 1.4.1993 and submitted his joining report but the Chief Ventenary Officer refused to accept the joining report and passed the order that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by Deputy Director, Vetenary, Uttaranchal and directed the petitioner to work as Daily Wager at Amottha. The petitioner has submitted that he has made a representation before the respondent No. 3, who after considering the representation of the petitioner issued fresh appointment letter vide order dated 20.8.1994. The petitioner has submitted his joining report and since then he was working as Class IV Employee. The petitioner has stated that he has not been paid salary since January, 1995. Interview for selection of the candidates was fixed on 30.6.1997. The petitioner has further submitted that respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 19/29.9.95 has terminated his services without any notice and without assigning any reason.

On 14.11.1995 Allahabad High Court has passed the following order:"Issue notice. Until further orders of this Court the operation of the impugned order dated 19th September, 1995 and also dated 29th September, 1995 shall remain stayed with liberty reserved to the respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

The petitioner has submitted mat on 30.6.1999, the respondent No. 2 passed a fresh order terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that the order has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

According to the case of the petitioner natural justice requires that once the respondents have made appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post

The Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, has further held that every administrative and quasijudicial order should be passed on reasons and grounds and grounds and reasons must be contained in the order itself.

The Apex Court in the case Sridhar v. Nagar Palika and another, AIR 1990 SC 307, has held as under:

"The High Court committed serious error in upholding the order of the Government dated 13.2.80 in setting aside the appellant''s appointment without giving any notice or opportunity to him. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of tax inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner''s order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore, the order was illegal and void. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the Commissioner''s order setting aside the appellant''s appointment. In this view, order of the High Court and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law."

The Apex Court after referring the cases of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, in the case D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, has held as under:

"It is fundamental rule of law that no decision just be taken which will affect the right of any person without fist 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. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Constitution Bench held that civil consequences covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and nonpecuniary damages. In its comprehension connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black''s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn. Page 1487, defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state of country....... they include....... rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil caution......In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (1967) 2 SCR 625, this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the case, the evidence is support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principle of natural justice.

In State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284: AIR 1952 SC 75, per majority, a seven Judges Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereudner for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority, which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even Executive Authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must taken care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way, which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice."

The petitioner by way of amendment in the writ petition has submitted that other similarly situated persons filed a Writ Petition No. 1647 of 2001 (SS), Sukhdev Prasad and others v. Additional Director of Animal Husbandry and others, which was decided by his Lordship Hon''ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma vide order dated 20.9.2001. The operative portion of that judgment is quoted below:

"The reason shown is that the services of the petitioners have been terminated as they were appointed without their being any vacancy is patently erroneous in view of the facts noticed above. Thus the termination order suffers from nonapplication of mind and it is liable to be quashed.

A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 30.6.1999 contained in Annexure Nos. 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition. The petitioners shall be treated in service and shall get all consequential benefits."

The facts of the present case are squarely covered with the facts and circumstances of aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1647 (SS) of 2001. The order terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain.

The writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 30.6.1999, contained in Annexure7 to the writ petition. The petitioners shall be treated in service and shall get all consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs.