Pokhan La! Banjare 5/0 Shri Mayavam Banjare, aged about 29 years, Occupation’ Service Posted as Shikshakarmi Ciass— III, Primary Schoo! Jadamuda Block Division Ma‘mpur, Presently posted at Primary Schooi Maniour, Block - Baioudabajar, DistrictvRaipur (C.G‘) yERSUS 1. / state of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Vanchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District— Raipur,(C.G.) g: gr, 2. Director District Raipur, (C.G,) /\\ < . ,.y/Q&"‘:“~Slf7’?>i\i‘ I3/ ‘x \ Q‘V l 3. Collector, Raipur, District— Raipur, (C.G.) if${Cg on ‘ Q? l /\~ ’ Ziia 63A €;.§3§:~”/ \g3 hijjij/ 4. Chief Executive Officer, _ District Panchayat, Raipur, A Raipur, (C.G.) Executive OfDcer, Janpad r " 5. Chief Panchayat Mainpur, District- Raiour. (C.G.i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTiON (3) N071 54 OF 2009 PETWHJ’NER Pokhan La} Baniare Versus RESPONDENTS‘ $mte of Chhattésgarh & Others (Writ Petition unde! Article 226 of the Coi‘istkution of mdia) Sing§e Bench : Hon’ble $hri Satish K. Agnihom! J. Present :- $hri Sunii Sahu. Acivccate fdr the pe£it§onen Shri MRS. Shatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State. Despite service of notice, none for the reepandents No.4 8: 5. ORDER ‘GRAL‘ {Passed on thie 4" day of May, 201 0) The petitioner, in ihie peiirion, is aggrieved by the canceiiation of his appoiritment order on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade iii under Janpad Panohayai Mainpur, without affording an opportunity oi nearing. The question of law involved in this writ petition is whether the apoointment of the petitioner. who hae been appointed after due seiection on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade iii, can be cancelled on the ground of submission oi alieged false and forged documents by some of the candidates, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The indisputabie facts. in nutsheii‘ are that the petitioner was seiected for aooointment on the oostof $hiksha Karmi Grade iil through proper selection process and he was accordingiv apoointed on 18-09-2007 (Annexure Pi2}. After sometime, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchaya't, Mainpur canceiied the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of submission of faise ano forged A, 2M“ ~ documents, by order dated 31 #4009 (Annexure - Pit). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has flied this Wm petition seeking a direction to quash the impugned order, whereby appointment of the petitioner has been canceiled, after a period of about 2 years, and to grant reiief of continuation of service on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-iii. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that once the petitioner has been appointed after foiiowing proper seiection process and after verification of the documents, his appointment cannot be canceiied without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel wouid further submit that the petitioner ought to have been given at feast an opportunity of hearing to establish the genuineness or bona‘ tide of the documents, which were allegediy discovered, later on, by the authorities, as false and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that on the similar facts and situation the identicai issue has been decided by this Court by judgment dated 7-8-2009 in WP. (S) No. 3612 of 2009 (Durgesh Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Chhattfsgam & others} and other connected matters, as weli as by order dated 27-10-2009 in WP. (S) No. 13 of 2009 (Shiv Kumar Verma & another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), which were allowed. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity. Learned counsel appearing for the State does not controvert the above submissions made by learned counsei appearing for the petitioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. tt is evident that the appointment order dated 18-9—2007 was cancelled after about I Mo years, without affording an opportunity of hearing i0 the petitioner. The principie of law §n passing such order? which visits with civil consequences, is well settled. No punitive order can be passed without applying the basic principle, of natural justice and fair play in action. The controversy involved in this case was considered by this Court in Dwgesh Prasaa‘ Sinha (supra) and Shiv Kumer Verma (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31 ‘7-200§ {Annexure —4 P11) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. 9. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate action/steps in accordance with iaw, if so advised, after complying with the basic principles of natural iustioe and fair play in action. 10. There shaii be no order asto costs. ' sir/— ”7% Satish K. Agnihotri " “Judge i t Gowri