HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR K t Writ Petition No. 771 of 2004 Petitioner Sayed Iqbhl Ahmed Rizvi Versus The State of Chhattisgar‘h & another Respondents for Judgment and Order on3ogdoy of‘ September, 2008. Sd/- Saiish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Wr1t Pet1t10n NO 771 of 2004 Syed Iqbal Ahmed R1zv1 son of Syed Ahmed ' VRlzVI aged about 60 years, Chalrman, Chhattlsgarh Rajya‘ Alpsankhyak Ayog, Re31dent of Great Eastern Road Ralpur a The challenge in this petition is the order dated 26.2.2004‘ '(Arinexure P/ 1), whereby the appointment of the petitioner by, order dated 1.2.7.2001 (Annexure P/2), as Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission (for short ‘the Comrhission’) Was cancelled. The indisputable facts in narrow compass are that‘in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) read With Sectlon 3(2) of the >Chhatt1sgarh State Comm1ss1on for M1nor1t1es Act 1996 (for short ‘the Act 1996’) the petitioner was appomted as Chairman of the Commissmn for a term of three years from the date he " assumed the charge under the prOVisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1996 According to learned counsel appeanng for the the petitioner assumed the charge on the same date.» 3s R petitioner, W x, ‘ : (Chhattlsgarh) g Versus Respondents 1 The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by the Special Secretary, Aadim Jati Evarn Anusuchit Jaati Vikas Vibhag Raijpur (Chattisgarh) The Special Secretary, Aadim Jati Evem Anusuchit Jaati ' Vikas Vibhag, Raipur i (Chhattisgarh) Twé iother members were appointed along with the petitioner. . t The petltloner was granted status of the cabmet mmlster and the members were granted the status of the state m1n1ster W1th all benefits é on 12.7.2001. Ms Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ’ . Wiouid submit that the appointment 30f the petitioner as CEhairman of the Commission was cancelled on 26.2.2004 before chmpletion of the term of the appointment. She relied on the prov1so to Section 4 (3) (1) of the Act 1996 wherein 1t 1s prov1ded that no person shall be removed under th1s clause until he has z i b’een g1ven a reasonable opportunity of being heard 1n the matter. l A'dn'iittedly, according to Ms Fouzia Mirza, no opportunity of heating was afforded to the petitioner befOre the impugned order was passed She rel1ed on a dec1s1on of the D1v1s10n Bench of thls Court 1n the matter of Badruddin Quraishy Vs. State of Ghhattisgarhl, 1n support of her contentlon. On ithe other hand Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ State would submit that the: State Government was fully competent to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman Without assigning any reason or without affording an opportunity of hearing. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused theipleadings and documents appended thereto. Section 3, Section 4 (1) and Section 4 (3) (t) reads as under:- “3. (1) The State Government shall constitute a body to be known as the Madhya'Pradesh State Commission for a Minorities to exercise the power conferred on, and to‘ perform the function assigned to it under this Act. i ‘ V, {2005(3) M.P.H.T. 64 (CG)} 1 (2) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson ‘ and two members to be norininated by the State E 1 ‘ Government from amongst persons of eminence, ability and integrity: ; Provided that the Chairperson and one member shall be from amongst the minority communities.” i “4. (1) The ChairpersOn and every member shall hold j office for a term of three years from the date he assumes charge.” “4. (3) The State Government shall remove a‘person from the office of Chairperson or a Member referred to in sub-section (2) if that person:— (f) has, in the opinion of the State Government so abused the position of Chairperson or Member as to render that person’s continuance in office detrimental to the interests of minorities of the public interest; Provided that no person shall be removed under this clause until the has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. The?petitioner was granted status of cabinet minister with all the perks, allowances and facilities granted to the cabinet minister. Admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put i forWard his case. The action of the respondents/authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1996 as well as violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play ingaction. This Court, dealing with a similar situation in the matter of Badru’ddin Quraishy(supra), in the case of appointment of the Haj Committee, held that if appointment of a member is for a term of three years, he cannot be removed before completion of three years except in accordance with law. I ’ It1i$ well settled principle of law that an‘ order Visiting with civil \ 1 consequences cannot be passed w1thout affordmg proper l opportunity of hearing Thelr Lordshlps of the Hon’ble Supreme l Court 1n the matter of Shrawan Kumar Jha 85 Others vs. State l l of Blhar 8a Others” wherein the appomtment of teachers was ‘can’celled W1thout g1v1ng them an opportunlty of 'hearmg, w observed as under ‘fit is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the View that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellant could be passed W1thout complymg w1th the rules of natural Justlce l i 1 l i l I l l 4 Th l Industries Ltd 85 0thers3 cons1der1ng the concept of bpportunity of hearing observed as under ‘fThe cardmal pomt that has to be borne in mind, in every ease, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, Justly, reasonably and impartially In other words application of the prinCiples of natural Justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person. It is a fundamental rule of law that nodecision must be taken which will*affect the right of any person without first 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. Therefore, fair play in action request that the proCedure adopted must be ust, fair and Hon’ble Supreme Court 1n the case of D K Yadav vs. J M A. 0., n“ n“o l ZAIR 1991 sc.3io 3 (1993)3 scc 2'59 , i nmryw. a j rsfasonable.‘ The manner of exercise} of the power and its ‘ :irhpact on the rights of the persoin affected would be jihconformity with the principles of natliral justice.” v A i 11. T;he gsaid principle is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido ,Kanhu University & dthérs4, wherein Their Lordships observed that : “The law is settled that non-arbitrariness is essential facet of i Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State action governed ? l by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further j corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice l is also a requirement of Article 14, for, natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public einployment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and ' i reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The i cjonferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to fair, just and reasonable treatment.” 12. Further, in the matters of Canara Bank 85 others vs. Debasis ‘ Dasi 8a otherss and Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy5, the Hon’ble . Supreme Court observed as under : “The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so asto enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order pas'sed" become wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair 4 AIRJ998 sc 3261 5 (2003) 4 scc 557 6 (2005) 6 scc 321 , . . j @ play and one of the most 1mportant prlnCIples of natural o Just1ce v ’ Applylng the well settled pr1nc1ples of law to the facts of the case the 1mpugned order dated 26 2 2004 (Annexure P/ 1) 1s v1t1ated \ and 1s quashed accordmgly The pet1t1on 1s allowed The pet1t10ner 1s entltled to all v cJonsequenual rehefs for the remammg perlod by not completmg agter-m of three years 1.e. four months and Slxteen days. Since the alppdintment of the petitioner was cancelled the petitioner was l deprwed of benefits flowmg from appomtment for a period of four m and Sixtee da Thus, he 1s entle to mterest on the ai’n unt at the rate of 6% per annum from the date he was deprlved of his legal claim The respondents are accordmgly directed to make the payments of salary, perks allowances 1n accordance w1th law Whlch was admlss1ble to hlm for the l remaming period of three years i.e. four months and sixteen daysl, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order asto costs. l . onths n ys tld l x l a l Sdl— \ i _ \