Vipin Kumar Yadav vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J

Heard the parties.

Instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no. 3, by which service of the petitioner has been discharged with. Further he prays for reinstatement in the service along with all consequential benefits in accordance with law and also prays for payment for the said period.

At the very outset Mr. S.S. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 29.11.2019 by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017 (Manohar Mandal & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors.). Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has already been quashed and set-aside and the petitioner was also one of para teachers against whom the order of termination was issued. As the impugned order itself has been quashed and set-aside, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief which was given to one Manohar Mandal and Md. Ehsan Ahmad, petitioners in the W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017. The impugned order challenged in the present writ petition has already been quashed and set aside in the W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017 and this Court held that:-

"It is well settled law that principle of natural justice is like a brooding omnipresence which prevails everywhere. The same is engrained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A person who was going to lose his service, which had a civil consequence on his life, was required to be given an opportunity of hearing and for that reason if that opportunity would have been given to him, he could have raised all such pleas which were available to him including the pleas with regard to the view of the Standing Committee. Had that opportunity of hearing been given to him that would have brought the entire matter to the notice of the authorities for consideration and taking an appropriate decision in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order of termination of his service, this Court restrains itself from considering the various other contentions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner and contested by the respondents. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.

The writ petition is allowed on the solitary ground of violation of principle of natural justice leaving it open for the respondents to proceed afresh, if so advised, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and upon consideration of the same in accordance with law.

As a consequence of the quashment of the impugned order, the petitioners shall be reinstated in service, however, consequential benefits shall depend on the final outcome and decision taken after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners."

On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed, however, Mr. Vishal Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.A. II, appearing for the JEPC and Mr. Rajyavardhan, learned counsel for the State, very fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 4663 of 2017 and the order impugned was also the subject matter of the present writ petition which has already been quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

It appears from the records that the impugned order has already been assailed in the earlier writ petition and after hearing the parties, the same is quashed and set aside making the petitioner of this writ petition also entitled for the same relief.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4663 of 2017.