Mukesh Kumar Shrivastav and Others, Dhiraj Kumar Katiyar and Manish Kumar Sethiya vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

(Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

Heard learned counsel for the parties. WP (S) Nos. 6393, 6646 & 7025 of 2009 involve common facts as well as common question of law, thus, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.

By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the cancellation order dated 23-10-2009 {Annexure - P/15 to WP (S) No. 6393 of 2009} on the ground that without affording proper opportunity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II have been cancelled.

The petitioners have relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, which are not relevant to the lis involved in the present cases.

Shri Sao, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the basis of the return filed by the State, would submit that there were several irregularities in appointments, as in some cases the candidates including some of the petitioners have not at all applied for recruitment and appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade - II, pursuant to the advertisement. Thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed. In view of that, it was not necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before cancellation of their appointment.

Indisputably, the petitioners were duly appointed on the post of Pharmacist Grade - II by orders dated 4th & 5th July, 2008. The petition is shorn of all relevant facts, except the facts of appointment and cancellation of the appointment orders. Thus, it is difficult to go into the method of appointment or decisions taken thereon. Further on perusal of the appointment orders of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners were appointed temporarily wherein it was clearly stated that the services of the petitioners may be terminated at any time with one month notice or in lieu, one month salary.

The authority has not disclosed anything except that there were serious irregularities in appointment of Pharmacist Grade - II on contract basis. It is worth mentioning that the impugned decision to cancel the appointment was taken after the petitioners were allowed to work for a period of about 15 months, on the ground of alleged irregularities without pointing out the nature of irregularities. Thus, it was necessary that the petitioners should have been noticed about the alleged irregularities providing opportunity to them to put forward their respective cases before passing the impugned order. It is not the case of cancellation of appointment on the terms of the appointment order, but cancellation was stigmatic.

This Court in Roshan Prasad Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others1 observed as under :

It is well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee(s). (See: Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others2, D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & Others3, Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Others4, Canara Bank & Others. v. Debasis Das & Others5, Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others6, Mohd. Sartaj & another v. State of U.P. & Others7, Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & others Vs. State of Punjab & others8, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others9, State of Manipur & Others v. Y. Token Singh & Others10, Jaswant Singh Pratap Singh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation & another11, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Lashkar12 and State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) Through LRs.13).

This Court, in Ku. Punam & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others14, wherein an identical issue came up for consideration, observed as under:

It is well settled that the purpose of rules of natural justice is not to administer justice alone but to prevent miscarriage of justice and the principles of natural justice are applicable to the administrative order, if such order affects right of a citizen.

Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of natural justice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity of hearing, in the event, of quashing of selection on account of irregularity committed on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing.

Subsequently, the ratio laid down by this Court in Ku. Punam (supra) has been referred approvingly in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Others15.

In view of the above, the impugned cancellation order dated 23-10-2009 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners to put forward their respective cases and thereafter, they may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and on its own merits, if so advised. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs.