Kailash Chander Sharma vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) and 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-6), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the abovesaid orders.

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.

It is undisputed on record that petitioner retired from service on 28.2.2011. It is also undisputed on record that impugned orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 were passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner or granting any opportunity of being heard.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following more than one reasons.

A bare reading of the impugned orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 would show that the same have been passed in glaring violation of basic principle of natural justice. The golden rule of Audi Alteram Partem has not been followed by the respondent authorities, before passing the impugned orders. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, for this reason alone.

During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the State whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders, he had no answer and rightly so, because it is a matter of record. If such order was contemplated against the petitioner, to his detriment, the respondent authorities were duty bound to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and grant him an opportunity of being heard. However, respondent authorities have failed to comply with the basic principle of natural justice, while passing the impugned orders. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders are patently illegal and cannot be sustained, for this reason as well.

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the numerous judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The development of law relating to the applicability of the rule of Audi Alteram Partem to administrative actions, can be traced right from A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Ridge Vs. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40, Sayeedur Rehman Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, , State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others,

The law laid down in all these judgments has been consistently followed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and the recent judgments are Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) through L.Rs. and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others,

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned orders dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) and 2.6.2011 (Annexure P-6), have been passed in glaring violation of basic principles of natural justice, present writ petition deserves to be allowed and same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders are declared illegal. However, it will be open to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and granting him an opportunity of personal hearing.

Resultantly, instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.